The Trouble With Libertarians
Christopher Beam at New York Magazine has a good article on libertarianism. It describes the different types of libertarianism and its popularity – it has a great tagline. Libertarians believe that the best government is the one that governs the least and empowers the individual over the state. This sounds really nice in a soundbite but how does this work in real life?
Libertarian minarchy is an elegant idea in the abstract. But the moment you get specific, the foundation starts to crumble. Say we started from scratch and created a society in which government covered only the bare essentials of an army, police, and a courts system. I’m a farmer, and I want to sell my crops. In Libertopia, I can sell them in exchange for money. Where does the money come from? Easy, a private bank. Who prints the money? Well, for that we’d need a central bank—otherwise you’d have a thousand banks with a thousand different types of currency. (Some libertarians advocate this.) Okay, fine, we’ll create a central bank. But there’s another problem: Some people don’t have jobs. So we create charities to feed and clothe them. What if there isn’t enough charity money to help them? Well, we don’t want them to start stealing, so we’d better create a welfare system to cover their basic necessities. We’d need education, of course, so a few entrepreneurs would start private schools. Some would be excellent. Others would be mediocre. The poorest students would receive vouchers that allowed them to attend school. Where would those vouchers come from? Charity. Again, what if that doesn’t suffice? Perhaps the government would have to set up a school or two after all.
And so on. There are reasons our current society evolved out of a libertarian document like the Constitution. The Federal Reserve was created after the panic of 1907 to help the government reduce economic uncertainty. The Civil Rights Act was necessary because “states’ rights” had become a cover for unconstitutional practices. The welfare system evolved because private charity didn’t suffice. Challenges to the libertopian vision yield two responses: One is that an economy free from regulation will grow so quickly that it will lift everyone out of poverty. The second is that if somehow a poor person is still poor, charity will take care of them. If there is not enough charity, their families will take care of them. If they have no families to take care of them—well, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
Of course, we’ll never get there. And that’s the point. Libertarians can espouse minarchy all they want, since they’ll never have to prove it works.
Yes, this is the problem with libertarianism. It’s an idealistic system that requires everyone to be acting in a rational manner and that the “free market” is completely without manipulation. We all know this isn’t true. People are messy, they aren’t machines. Many of them make crummy decisions. It’s no use (IMO) talking about how people SHOULD behave. We should talk about how they DO behave.
Here is the lesson of the exercise for me:
There’s always tension between freedom and fairness. We want less government regulation, but not when it means firms can hire cheap child labor. We want a free market, but not so bankers can deceive investors. Libertarianism, in promoting freedom above all else, pretends the tension doesn’t exist.
Of course we all worry about nannystatism. But where is the line? I don’t really believe in the slippery slope anymore. Seatbelt laws don’t mean that we’re going to submit to involuntary DNA tests. Sometimes government intervention is a good thing, even if it is choosing the winner and pre-empting the free market. I certainly agree that this can be done too much but I don’t think the answers are so glib and easy. Real life is messy and is something we learn by making mistakes. I imagine democracy is the same way.
The best we can do I think is to incorporate libertarian ideals where we can. The anger about TSA searches is healthy, as is questioning our indefinite detention policies. Libertarians have painted themselves in a corner IMO by allying themselves so closely with social conservatives. It’s hard to take them seriously when their allies believe women’s uteruses are state property.
Tags: Libertarians
Libertarians have painted themselves in a corner IMO by allying themselves so closely with social conservatives.
Most Libertarians are Republicans who don’t want to be called Republican, so they grasp onto the title of Libertarian in the name of coolness.
Conversing with Libertarians is maddening. They simply refuse to grasp reality or complexity. Their entire political system is based on the notion that everyone will always do the right thing. We won’t have to regulate pollution because businesses won’t pollute in L land. We won’t need welfare because the people of L land will take care of the poor. Libertarianism always reminds me of a science fiction novel – pretty cool to imagine, but impossible to achieve.
you are almost right, pandora. libertarians don’t believe that people will always do the right thing, rather, they believe that if people do a thing, it must be right. Though, they have caved and will begrudgingly grant that people shouldnt hurt one another in the most basic sense of “hurt.”
It reminds me a lot of when Rand Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act (this is mentioned in the article as well). Paul said that the free market would punish businesses that discriminate, despite 100 years of data during Jim Crow that this was absolutely not true. I don’t understand why so many people still believe that businesses are looking out for the common good.
A heck of a lot more than I’d want to live in a world ruled by socialists.
Of course, there’s a bit of an internal contradiction in the concept of being ruled by libertarians in the first place. 🙂
The problem with Libertarians is that they want to live in a perfect libertarian society instead of pragmatic geo-political one.
Their ideals are more important to them than the will of others who don’t believe in their ideals. In that way they are stubbornly arrogant, and the devoted push forward with blinders on hoping to one day live in their perfect little world… and won’t flex at all to be at all pragmatic about the realities of the real world.
No central bank… that can’t happen in today’s society. No welfare.. they can’t happen. Yet they push for complete abolishment of such things instead of focusing on achievable goals like halting increased taxes and fees and limiting the expansion of programs they disagree with.
This makes them lose credibility with voters, and keeps them from achieving their crazy ass goals.
Libertarians need a reality check. Then they need to purge the crazy and embrace a pragmatic approach.
I used to know a Delawarean who fancied himself a Libertarian. He was a really nice guy, aside from being nuts as regards the well-being of the polity.
You can spot Libertarians by the pocket-sized copies of the Constitution they are fond of whipping out when challenged. They don’t understand it, but they are fond of waving it around. Sort of like when Republicans wave the flag.
The Libertarian world stalled in 1789. They haven’t figured out that the time when you could move over the next ridge, build a cabin, and exist independent of society is long gone.
Frank,
It’s funny that you mention the Constitution because I was thinking along similar lines. Everything sounds great but you have to ask – how does this work? Just think back to O’Donnell and the 1st amendment. She was trying to say the 1st amendment doesn’t mean separation of church and state despite 200+ years of jurisprudence. Just take the words “government shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion.” How do you apply this to life? It’s interpretation.
I think we should have a real place for libertarian ideals in our government. Modern day libertarians are just Republicans right now. IMO, libertarians might be more effective if they formed a swing caucus (like Blue Dogs) and swing their votes to highlight certain issues.
“A heck of a lot more than I’d want to live in a world ruled by socialists.”
But that’s the point, Dana. We don’t live in a world ruled by either group. We live in a mixed-up, complicated world where picking and choosing the best ideas offered by various groups is a better way of operating.
I agree with Geezer to an extent, but I’m not sure that message is what Beam intended (who wanted to give information about Libertarians to an audience confused as to why anyone would believe in it and dismiss the whole ideology).
Beam’s article is based on a strawman fallacy. It’s really easy to shoot down Libertarian proposals (non-full body scans, no mandatory seat belt laws, allowing four loko, legalizing pot, school vouchers, etc.) if you characterize Libertarians as a bunch of “crazy uncles” (beam’s words). But as this article is right up your wheelhouse, you don’t notice it. I could just as easily written a similar argument about liberalism:
“Yes liberals believe in an egalitarian society, where everybody has the same things. It’s a nice ideal, but does it work in practice? No, because what if society is willing to pay more for the work of a doctor than that of a bartender? But if they get paid differently, then everybody won’t have the same possessions. And what if people want different things? Order breaks down when the government decides on the bundle of goods everybody should have. This is what happened with the Soviet Union Therefore, liberalism should be dismissed and we should never consider their proposals. So ignore the next liberal who talks about health care reform or extending unemployment insurance, because they’re just crazy uncles who believe that everyone wants the same things.”
Do I agree with what I wrote above? No. But what I wrote follows Beam’s logic.
Ok – so what you call a Libertarian Government…
a third world country………..
think about it – Say a country in Africa…those who have HAVE…HAVE
and those who don’t – DON’T
that is Libertarianism….
Pierce: “For a long time, I was perfectly happy to agree that libertarians were simply right wing fringe players who liked to smoke a lot of dope. Here, though, we see the ugly truth. Libertarianism is stuck forever in its own incoherence.”
http://www.thenation.com/blog/slacker-friday-44
Alfred Kahn’s death yesterday reminds that deregulation, like regulation, requires focus:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/business/29kahn.html
Dirty Girl,
You are using the same strawman argument that Beam and any other liberal who is insecure in the effectiveness of their political beliefs and refuse to acknowledge the pitfalls of liberalism. You and many other liberals I know (just a few here, but I personally know a lot) hyperbolize the outcomes of Libertarian proposals, just to scare people into falsely believing things like lowering the estate tax from 55% to 35% will force every member of the middle class onto the streets (just like in a third world country, right?)
Third world countries are not libertarian governments for many reasons, including the fact that they rely on the military and brutal police tactics to keep their power. Libertarians despise such tactics.
Also, what is your obsession with considering wealth and income at the expense of all of the other things in life? I prefer to judge and classify people for who they really are, not on how much money they make. Does making a million dollars a year make me any different of a person than if I make twenty thousand a year?
“Does making a million dollars a year make me any different of a person than if I only made twenty thousand a year?”
Yes.
Bill Humphrey, please explain. Yes millionaires have the ability to live in Greenville and drive a mercedes, stuff I don’t have the money to do, but those things don’t fundamentally change who they are relative to me and you, Bill. I don’t consider myself as different from the Greenville millionaires en masse, because I drive a hyundai.
The vast majority of them consider themselves different from you, even if you don’t return the sentiment. Money changes almost any person. Your values and beliefs often change. It is the exception rather than the rule when a person is not affected by their relative (and absolute) wealth or lack thereof.
Bill, money doesn’t change a person, it highlights who they are.
My values and beliefs are not for sale.
Somali pirates are the ultimate libertarians.
I have had a few dollars and I have lost everything. Having resources for the first time does indeed bring change, not all good. The real lesson in my life has to lose money and posessions and realize that I still had friends and family and the ability to start anew. Only then did I truly learn the lesson that “stuff” is just that “stuff” Some of the most miserable folks I know have 7-8 figures of net worth. Just Sayin’
@Delaware Libertarian
Look Mr McVay and your ilk – its very simple
libertairaism is simple – like those who espouse it
so I broke it down to its common demoninator
simple is as simple does – it is what is is
Im not going to expound on or extol the virtues of something that has no virtue or redeaming qualities for the segment of our popuation we have an obligation to care for
it has nothing to do with my insecurties – I am very secure in my humanism and belief in charity and good works and social conscience. I also live that belief as well, in case you need to know.
what I stated are the faxs and the basics of what you believe
I dont care what color you put on it – it is still a pig
don’t like it – change it – other than that – your political views would make us a 3rd world county.
Does making a million dollars a year make me any different of a person than if I make twenty thousand a year?
to answer that – yes – under your form of government that would enable you to much more than those that make 20k
not much different than what we have now – only in our current form of Gov those that dont have, do have, a better hope for the future
I was born with the silver spoon in my mouth = and spit it out really fast
realized early on that it left nothing but a metallic nasty taste in my mouth
so I walked away from it all and never looked back
what I have, I have coz I built it myself – I means more too me and I live to empower those that have less to make more for their lives and to create opportunities for those that wish to mke a better life and work and struggle for it.
If one is not willing to do that , I have no time for them
I KNOW the country club life is empty – unless you do something with it
I am certainly not poor, but rich when those I have helped call or text on Christmas with a “god bless you” or a thank for your help
That! can never be banked, nor measured – but I am blessed to be rich in spirit and in friends and family
take your cold Libertarianism and try to mke it warm yourself – you will never succeed
Jonathan Zasloff undresses the ostensible basis for libertarianism.
I have yet to hear any coherent account of a “natural market distribution.” Why do we have any property? Because the state enforces it in court, and if necessary, with force. Why do millions of business thrive throughout the country? Because the government has decided to give them patents and copyrights. Corporations are creatures of the state, designed to protect investors with limited liability. (And that liability, too, of course, is a creature of the state).
http://www.samefacts.com/2010/12/watching-conservatives/libertarianism-and-the-state-of-nature/
“There are reasons our current society evolved out of a libertarian document like the Constitution.”
That is an interesting statement for 2 reasons. First, it suggests that the USA in its founding was essentially orientated to what we now call “libertarianism.” Of course, we’d have to except women, African Americans, Native Americans, and the property-less from the conception, making the assertion dubious. Yet many people seem to labor under that conception of the USA’s founding.
Second, while government interventions have evolved for precisely the reasons the author has cited (e.g., the insufficiency of private charitable means to address unacceptable social ills), it seems to me that true progressives would hold that government interventions that promote the general welfare of the citizenry should have their genesis in more than necessity. They should argue that government interventions that promote the general welfare should have their genesis in a collective recognition of what an individual *deserves* to experience and secure living in a society. Individuals deserve to live in societies that maximize liberty, equality, and human well being to the greatest extent possible. To the extent that the USA’s founders and subsequent governmental policies and behavior have failed to recognize that truth is the extent to which the USA’s system of government has failed and has acted inadequately (sometimes outrageously so).
“Beam’s article is based on a strawman fallacy.”
DL, I’m don’t believe you have illustrated that Beam has created a straw man by your “analogous” argument (assuming it really is analogous)about liberalism. I am not even sure that you can even show that a straw man fallacy has been committed by analogy.
If you want to argue that Beam’s argument sets up a straw man, then you would need to show where it goes off the rails in its presentation of the essential positions of libertarianism.
I agree with you Dana G., the Constitution is a liberal document, but that’s interpretation. Only Chrisitne O’Donnell is allowed to tell us what it really means.
Delaware Libertarian,
In the article, Beam says it’s not fair to define a party by it’s fringes but points out that Libertarians don’t really have a mainstream, their mainstream believes what is written up there. In fact, Ron Paul wants to end the fed and go to the gold standard. I would also argue that Republicans are increasingly defined by their fringes. They kiss the ring of Rush Limbaugh and worry about primary challenges for insufficient tea party purity.