What It Feels Like To Be A Libertarian

[Bono]

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/FeelsLike.htm

What It Feels Like To Be A Libertarian

Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?

I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with a level of frustration that is nearly beyond human endurance. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.

Imagine spending two decades warning that government policy is leading to a major economic collapse, and then, when the collapse comes, watching the world conclude that markets do not work.

Imagine continually explaining that markets function because they have a built in corrective mechanism; that periodic contractions are necessary to weed out unproductive ventures; that continually loosening credit to avoid such corrections just puts off the day of reckoning and inevitably leads to a larger recession; that this is precisely what the government did during the 1920's that led to the great depression; and then, when the recession hits, seeing it offered as proof of the failure of laissez-faire capitalism.

Imagine spending years decrying federal intervention in the home mortgage market; pointing out the dangers associated with legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act that forces lenders to make more risky loans that they otherwise would; testifying before Congress on the lack of oversight and inevitable insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to legislators who angrily respond either that one is "exaggerat[ing] a threat of safety and soundness . . . which I do not see" (Barney Frank) or "[I[f it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals" (Maxine Waters) or "[T[he problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place" (Gregory Meeks) or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "one of the great success stories of all time" (Christopher Dodd); and arguing that the moral hazard created by the implicit federal backing of such privately-owned government-sponsored enterprises is likely to set off a wave of unjustifiably risky investments, and then, when the housing market implodes under the weight of bad loans, watching the collapse get blamed on the greed and rapaciousness of "Wall Street."

I remember attending a lecture at Georgetown in the mid-1990s given by a member of the libertarian Cato Institute in which he predicted that, unless changed, government policy would trigger an economic crisis by 2006. That prediction was obviously ideologically-motivated alarmism. After all, the crisis did not occur until 2008.

Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.

Cassandra’s curse was to always tell the truth about the future, but never be believed. If you add to that curse that she would be ridiculed, derided, and shunned for making her predictions, you have a pretty fair approximation of what it feels like to be a libertarian.

If you’d like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR’s New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won’t feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.

[opebo]

Libertarianism is a psychological aberration composed of a mix of hubris, submissiveness, inability to face reality, blatant cognitive dissonance (double standards), and bootlicking.

[John Dibble]

Libertarianism is a psychological aberration composed of a mix of hubris, submissiveness, inability to face reality, blatant cognitive dissonance (double standards), and bootlicking.

But opebo, your ideology isn't libertarianism.

[Earth]

Libertarianism is a psychological aberration composed of a mix of hubris, submissiveness, inability to face reality, blatant cognitive dissonance (double standards), and bootlicking.

It doesn't surprise me you don't have any examples. I'm not even a libertarian, but this is just too good to pass up.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No, Libertarianism is mostly egoism mixed with post-adolescent paranoia (why ARE you people so obsessed with guns?).

[John Dibble]

No, Libertarianism is mostly egoism mixed with post-adolescent paranoia (why ARE you people so obsessed with guns?).

I dunno, try asking the people who are obsessed with taking them away.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No, Libertarianism is mostly egoism mixed with post-adolescent paranoia (why ARE you people so obsessed with guns?).

I dunno, try asking the people who are obsessed with taking them away.

Mostly because scary libertarians up in Idaho seem intent to use them to their fullest potential...

Actually no, I'm not anti-libertarian; I just have a very different view of human beings than most libertarians do (not necessarily a 'pro-statist' one, but one which is less dependant on homo economicus; I think this is why libertarianism has never really had much of a following outside the US and a certain type of 20something intellectual.)

[Matt Damon™]

Given the conduct of national governments in the 20th century, I'm honestly unsure as whether we can trust the state with arms let alone worry about citizens.

[Beet]

I see that by making the claim that FDR's New Deal merely "prolonged" the depression as opposed to "intensified" or "made deeper" or "caused" the depression, the writer of this article is sticking to the moderate revisionist line, as opposed to the intensified revisionist line. I suppose this qualifies him as a level- headed thinker in right wing circles these days.

Of course what the article omits is that being a libertarian also means that you never have to admit that you're wrong, since there is no perfectly libertarian societies out there, any failure can somehow be twisted to be blamed on government (while any success can be attributed to 'market liberalization').

[Ban my account ffs!]

I see that by making the claim that FDR's New Deal merely "prolonged" the depression as opposed to "intensified" or "made deeper" or "caused" the depression, the writer of this article is sticking to the moderate revisionist line, as opposed to the intensified revisionist line. I suppose this qualifies him as a level- headed thinker in right wing circles these days.

Of course what the article omits is that being a libertarian also means that you never have to admit that you're wrong, since there is no perfectly libertarian societies out there, any failure can somehow be twisted to be blamed on government (while any success can be attributed to 'market liberalization').

Well said.

[Eraserhead]

Libertarianism is a psychological aberration composed of a mix of hubris, submissiveness, inability to face reality, blatant cognitive dissonance (double standards), and bootlicking.

Great post.

[A18]

Of course what the article omits is that being a libertarian also means that you never have to admit that you're wrong, since there is no perfectly libertarian societies out there, any failure can somehow be twisted to be blamed on government (while any success can be attributed to 'market liberalization').

In other words, libertarianism cannot be evaluated using simplistic case studies. That, however, is in no way a critique of libertarianism. Indeed, you could easily recast the complaint as follows: "Being a leftist means that you never have to admit that you were wrong; for so long as there is a market—and even they do not propose to do away with markets altogether—any failure can somehow be twisted [so as?] to be blamed on the market (while any success can be attributed to 'government regulation')."

Truth be told, even if there weren't always a readily-available scapegoat, "failure" would never have to be acknowledged. To say that your ideology is preferable to all others, is not to say that it will right every wrong.

(EDIT: We're also assuming, it should be noted, that consequentialism is the proper measure of an ideology. But since everyone seems to accept that proposition to one extent or another, we probably aren't sidestepping a major issue.)

[Alcon]

This is a deeply annoying article to me, for reasons entirely unrelated to its arguments, none of which are new or special.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Bono,

As usual you provide informative and thoughtful posts.

Let me suggest that there are a variety of libertarian school's of thought, with subtle differences of emphasis between them.  So, I don't thinks you can accurately say there is one libertarian response to life.

Let me further suggest that libertarians are bound to be frustrated largely to the extent they focus on the mindless acceptance by all too many, of big government as the panacea to all problems.  The glass will never be full, but we should look at improving the situation, rather than at the imperfections of the real world.

It seems to me that individual libertarians can be more effective (and less frustrated) if they focus on one particular aspect of the problem, and devote their energies to improving matters in that specific area.  This requires focused thought, learning, experimentation and action.

While not a libertarian (I'm a fusionist), I decided about forty years ago to devote my energies to supporting the right to keep and bear arms.  The effort was herculean, and took decades to bear fruit.  However, I can honestly state that our right to keep and bear arms is far more secure today than it was forty years ago.

Keep up the good work (especially annoying Alcon).

[Nym90]

I see that by making the claim that FDR's New Deal merely "prolonged" the depression as opposed to "intensified" or "made deeper" or "caused" the depression, the writer of this article is sticking to the moderate revisionist line, as opposed to the intensified revisionist line. I suppose this qualifies him as a level- headed thinker in right wing circles these days.

Of course what the article omits is that being a libertarian also means that you never have to admit that you're wrong, since there is no perfectly libertarian societies out there, any failure can somehow be twisted to be blamed on government (while any success can be attributed to 'market liberalization').

No, libertarian societies don't exist today, but they did exist once upon a time. Government was created and expanded for a reason (and no, not just to oppress people, though obviously that was the incentive in some cases).

[dead0man]

No, libertarian societies don't exist today, but they did exist once upon a time.

cite? 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, Libertarianism is mostly egoism mixed with post-adolescent paranoia (why ARE you people so obsessed with guns?).

I dunno, try asking the people who are obsessed with taking them away.

No one of any consequence?

[JohnFKennedy]

I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with a level of frustration that is nearly beyond human endurance. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.

Teleological much? Shockingly, there isn't one single strand of history that moves inexorably toward an inevitble conclusion. The fact that he is willing to state that he will be 'inevitably proven correct by events' suggests a real lack of scepticism and introspection when it comes to his beliefs. I am hoping that the author has never been a student of history; for historians, 'inevitably' is a four-letter word.

Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics.

This assessment bugs me - suggesting that study of Hayek's work means one can make accurate predictions gives the work a universality and absoluteness that seems misguided to me. Firstly, it seems to place him on a higher plane of understanding than any other thinker - and in my opinion represents a degree of intellectual snobbishness - and secondly, it does not account for the context in which Hayek worked. I don't see why invoking Hayek should constitute the end of an argument. I also remain sceptical that great works of philosophy should be taken as universal truths that can be divorced from the context in which they were written - although I do admit I am guilty of this at times myself.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

for historians, 'inevitably' is a four-letter word.

Except when used in a sarcastic way, don't forget that

[Person Man]

Ummmm... does it feel like having sex with a tractor trailer in a parking lot?

No, libertarian societies don't exist today, but they did exist once upon a time.

cite? 

Ummm...before the last Ice Age?

[dead0man]

anarchy doesn't equal libertarian

[Person Man]

...and anarchy doesn't equal anomie. We really need to get our terminology straight.

[dead0man]

k....but that doesn't change the point that what was going on then was NOT libertarian.

[War on Want]

I see that by making the claim that FDR's New Deal merely "prolonged" the depression as opposed to "intensified" or "made deeper" or "caused" the depression, the writer of this article is sticking to the moderate revisionist line, as opposed to the intensified revisionist line. I suppose this qualifies him as a level- headed thinker in right wing circles these days.

Of course what the article omits is that being a libertarian also means that you never have to admit that you're wrong, since there is no perfectly libertarian societies out there, any failure can somehow be twisted to be blamed on government (while any success can be attributed to 'market liberalization').

I couldn't have said it better.

[dead0man]

And again, you can put any ideology in place of libertarian and say the exact same thing.  EVEN YOURS!