Opinion of free-market fundamentalists' appropriation of "libertarianism"

Well the progressives took the word 'liberal' well before Rothbard and company took the word libertarian. All's fair in love and war as they say.

Most free-market types accept industry-centered or consumer-centered regulation and validation. Without them their customers would not trust them and they would never grow. If the business was constantly polluting the town it built in would they succeed? Maybe in the short term but eventually and especially in today's world they would be stupid to ignore considering stakeholders other than stockholders, management, suppliers, and customers. Libertarians oppose regulation by the state in principle - particularly because in many respects local & state regulation is much more restrictive than it was in the past and the general welfare clause and interstate commerce clauses have been loosened considerably in the last 80 or so years. In some cases the existing regulation by the state is reasonable though I suspect it could be carried out perhaps more efficiently by private actors.

In a world where private property is respected, people will still have norms of behavior from non-state social institutions such as family, churches, civic organizations, youth and adult groups, etc. Thus, if someone was to cause damage to them there would still be an apparatus for addressing damages to one's self or property. Many times the state actors hide their own self-interests and fallible nature. They emphasize they are far worse in the private sector. Yet, I don't see immediate monopoly power in the private sector unless it is one that is already heavily regulated and the oligopoly power has been aided by government benefits or regulation or 'looking the other way'. The government person is assumed wrongly that they are doing it 'for the common good'. And even if the person has 'good intentions' there are almost always unintended negative consequences, as well as information issues clouding the decisions they make. In a country the size of America or larger state like CA or NY it is very difficult to decide what is the best option for such a wide group of people. Yet, so often that is just what happens. Inevitably we see third party / moral hazard issues, the kind that often occur when the person making the decision is not the person who is impacted or that people can enjoy taking from something that is public and the upkeep suffers and no one takes ownership of whatever it is.

Given so many of the situations that radical political philosophers discuss are hypothetical - example Walter Block's 1970's book, Defending the Undefendable takes the point of defending blackmailers and prostitutes on purely libertarian terms. He was widely castigated by the Ayn Rand crew and even some libertarians though Rothbard and I believe Hayek both appreciated the book.

These works and views are points on the compass to always point toward as well as items for further discussion when considering any new legislation. I don't put too much weight on the implications of late-Rothbard in light of all the other good things he said. Likewise, some of Hoppe's recent speeches which I am not in complete agreement with BTW, when taken out of context of a semi-utopian covenant society sound absolutely monstrous to a person who considers themselves tolerant and a part of a diverse society. I think it would have played better if Hoppe had also proposed a corollary 'la-la-libertarian' pro-LGBT covenant society to go alongside his illustrated society which would forcibly remove them and the far left. Yet he is very socially conservative and abhors the far left and the so-called Beltway libertarians with a passion so it is not a real surprise and some of his points in other works are very salient with regard to property, the state, and the question of borders.

At the end of the day there are a lot of libertarians who are not going to argue too hard about banning certain tangible smaller-scale public aspects like libraries or public parks, or even public universities. And whether someone is a private property absolutist or overuses the Non-Aggression principle to negate free speech or defense from an imminent attack these are just a very small fringe and most actual, flesh and blood people when it comes down to individual cases will make exceptions.

There are a lot of worse things out there that have much more deleterious effects on the common person like zoning made by special interests to prevent new businesses or that the police can still claim eminent domain from traffic stops in all but a few states and even in those cases the government is looking for a way around it.

Many tout economic freedom - the ability for the individual person to choose where to work, the ability of the entrepreneur to start a business easily without heavy licensing requirements or local/state regulatory hoops to go through as some very critical free market ideas that can have widespread support on ad hoc / case by case basis. Thus we can find agreement in talks from the mainstream or progressive left on hopes for people in say N. Korea, Zimbabwe, or Venezuela to live a life as they want to doing whatever they want. At the same time a libertarian will cringe when the same left-of-center type starts talking about inequality when these people have only basic economic rights...

Most people, including radical libertarians, understand that markets do sometimes fail. For one they understand it is about profits and losses - not just profits. No system is perfect - yet a less authoritative system that does not have the track record of wiping out millions in wars or wiping out savings of many through inflation and wasteful spending is a system that I think is starting to find more and more interest.

I think the bumper sticker libertarian talking points can only go so far. Even Ron Paul admits that too much is involved in the global financial system to just 'End the Fed' overnight. Unfortunately sophistication is a harder sell and requires education and an in-depth look both at current events and history. I hope the best we can do is to continue to foster a free exchange of ideas in the market place and in our education systems and I am encouraged that some people from the left and right are also being able to work together in some respects and realize the benefits of economic freedom on the road to greater prosperity.

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? April 15, 2024, 11:46:29 PM

News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more