What's wrong with libertarianism

[yesthattom]

I’ve been meaning to write an article with that title for so long (except it was going to be titled, “Libertarians are a bunch of pussies”) but now someone has written a better article. Much more informed, better researched, and it doesn’t stoop to name-calling. In fact, he never uses the word “pussies”.

There are a bunch of things I’d like to quote, but when I was done reading the article this was in my cut-n-paste buffer:

Perhaps the most communicable libertarian meme-- and one of the most mischievous-- is the attempt to paint taxation as theft.

First, it’s dishonest. Most libertarians theoretically accept government for defense and law enforcement. (There are some absolutists who don’t even believe in national defense; I guess they want to have a libertarian utopia for awhile, then hand it over to foreign invaders.)

Now, national defense and law enforcement cost money: about 22% of the 2002 budget-- 33% of the non-social-security budget. You can’t swallow that and maintain that all taxes are bad. At least the cost of those functions is not “your money”; it’s a legitimate charge for necessary services.

Americans enjoy the fruits of public scientific research, a well-educated job force, highways and airports, clean food, honest labelling, Social Security, unemployment insurance, trustworthy banks, national parks. Libertarianism has encouraged the peculiarly American delusion that these things come for free. It makes a philosophy out of biting the hand that feeds you.

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

Comments

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link. I too have been meaning to get around to such an article, giving it increasing thought over the past couple of weeks. What I want to get across (on the nature of property and on the nature of power) isn't really covered there, so I still feel obligated to write.

[lovingboth]

Hmm, how much of that 22% is completely wasted / not actually necessary for defence?

The US could lose probably 90% of its nuclear forces and be exactly as secure as it is now, for example.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Counter example: Underwriter's Laboratories.

[penk.livejournal.com]

Absolutism is the worst kind of rationality. Choosing a 240 year old document as "This is the ONLY justification we will accept for laws" is narrow minded and not in touch with reality.

I don't remember the constitution mentioning airports, interstate highways, financial support for those who need it, and support for research and expansion. They didn't exist in 1776, so they shouldn't be financed now?

One other thing. National defense in 1776 involved a standing army probably in the 50,000 range, with reservists in the 200,000 range. The military has grown to match the size and needs of the country. The nuclear expenses are hardly where the money goes in the US military. It goes to people and research for idiotic programs like SDI (reagan) and missile shields (bush). See a pattern here?

[ceo]

I take offense at your proposed title. It's unfair to pussies. :-)

There's a part of Libertarian philosophy (if you can call it that that) that the article doesn't address: It pretends power differences don't exist. Many Libertarins seem to think that things like workplace health and safety regulations are bad because they interfere with the ability of the individual to freely enter conracts, or somthing like that. I think the idea is that if I don't want a work environment that exposes me to radioactive waste with no safety gear, I'm free to go work somewhere else. Of course, the possibility that those might be the only jobs available is conveniently glossed over.

It (and free-market conservatism in general) also blithely ignores the fact that there are some areas where markets are actively counterproductive, the best example I can think of being health care.

[mangosteen]

To what is that a counterexample?

[mangosteen]

Most absolutist talking points surrounding "freedom to contract" blithely ignore the "principal-agent problem".

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

An entirely private entity that provides product quality standards labelling service, i.e. there is no reason we need an FDA for food labelling, etc., etc.

[aillecat.livejournal.com]

I feel like you misunderstand the libertarian point of view. MOst libertarians are well aware of the fact that these services do in fact cost money, and therefore, if they are run by the government, would need some sort of tax to support them. The things libertarians don;t want our tax money going to are handouts to the people who refuse to work for a living or are getting paid to pump out babies, as a libertarian, I was never told that these things come for free, however in some cases, taxes should be compartmentalized.

As a libertarian I believe that an honest amount of money should be paid for these services, and that these services should not be used to invade my bedroom, decide who I can marry, and regulate what kind of weapons I may own to protect me and my own. I also do not want to be supporting other people with my hard earned money, unless its a situation like unemployment and/or social security, the people involved are expected to pay into it, like insurance, the same way I do. I do not believe in handouts.

While I do not believe "taxation" is theft, I do believe that using my tax money for things that are morally objectionable to a taxpayer *is* theft. The tax code is all sort of fucked, and while its unrealistic to think it can be solved this way, it would be nice if we were charged taxes on things that we thought were vitally essential, and not morally objectionable, like if I could make sure none of my money went to busting pr0n sites and the budget instead goes to finding Osama Bin Hiding for fucking with my country, friends and family, then the tax would be worth it.

Unfortunately its unrealistic, and therefore I pay taxes, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe at the core using my tax money for welfare is 'stealing' from me.

[penk.livejournal.com]

things libertarians don;t want our tax money going to are handouts to the people who refuse to work for a living or are getting paid to pump out babies,

The implication is, of course, that everyone on welfare is there just because they refuse to work. God forbid economic or social conditions that have made it impossible for them to do so.

This is the republican right wing party line just redressed into some flag-waving constitution thumbing ideology. Absolutism without detail. Dictation without dialog. It's either them or us.

This is why I, and most of the US population, will never consider Liberatarians anything more than a fringe bunch of whackos.

[aillecat.livejournal.com]

The FDA is corrupt anyway, things like aspartame and such get passed through, while stevia, a natural sweetener is only allowed to be marketed as a "food supplement". Its much safer, aspartame is just a several billion dollar a year business so they pay the FDA off.

[aillecat.livejournal.com]

Actually if you read it again, disability insurance is a completely different thing than WELFARE.

Trust me, I've been through more hardship than many of those people, and managed to work my way back up and have a productive life, and support myself and my family. I believe the welfare system hurts more people than it helps, and I can draw some major real-life examples in my own family.

My beliefs are based on my experiences, not on what some party line tells me.

[penk.livejournal.com]

Actually if you read it again, disability insurance is a completely different thing than WELFARE.

Sorry, where in this thread is that?

Trust me, I've been through more hardship than many of those people,

So, you're pitting your personal experience against tens of millions of people, and saying you've been through hardships and gotten through, and therefore, most of them should be able to do so as well? Even though you've never met them, never talked to them, never worked with them, never experienced what they're experiencing?

You've lumped everyone in welfare into the same category, and assigned them all as 'freeloaders'. To be fair, you said 'most'. Can you honestly say that you've met, talked to, and researched everyone on the welfare roll, and they are all just layabouts who won't get off their duff to get a job?

I want to be clear. I am totally for self motivation and personal accountability. I've gone through hells in my own life (as everyone ont he planet has - never assume your hells are worse or better than anothers). And I've gotten through them. But I will -never- assume I am 'better than' someone else just because I've done so. Every person is unique, and subject to their personal circumstances. Making wide-ranging statements over a class of people just because they have one particular attribute the same is narrow thinking and a classist approach to society.

And is all too common in politics, particularly in the libertarian party.

[aillecat.livejournal.com]

Sorry, where in this thread is that?

I said that in my comment.Making wide-ranging statements over a class of people just because they have one particular attribute the same is narrow thinking and a classist approach to society.

And this is wrong how? people assume all *ism* is bad, its a liberal way of thinking. In the United States, we have chances to bounce between classes based on our motivation and potential. Therefore, if someone works hard to be raised from lower class to middle class to higher class, then its wrong? In my opinion, thats just a masked communist way of thinking.... (just like you said libertarianism is masked republican thinking?)

Why the all of a sudden attack on libertarians, don't you have some republicans to lambast or something?

[mangosteen]

Any large human endeavor will have corruption. I see no reason to think that a private agency that has a profit motive would do any better, and plenty of reasons that it could do worse, especially in the realm of food and medicine, which is not a neat and profitable closed-end problem, like electrial appliances.

[aillecat.livejournal.com]

seems to me the problem is not the labeling here, which is the one thing the FDA does correctly, but its the approval process.

Several very beneficial drugs that are available overseas have been stonewalled here for decades due to politics.

Same with the food sweetener issue. one cannot lable stevia as a sweetener, only as a food supplemtn though its been used thousands of years with no ill effects. I'd like to be able to make my own choices about what to put in my own body, thanks.

The government should stop trying to protect me from myself, thanks.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

One very rarely has a choice of which class to truly beling to, though one somewhat more often has a choice of how much money to make. Class is much more than immediate wealth; it encompasses a set of perspectives on what is possible and what is 'common sense'. Those who don't have the perspecitve of the people making as much money as they themselves are often fritter that money away because they lack the knowledge of how to keep it and/or the belief that keeping it is worth the effort.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Toasters aren't the same as food.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

For the purpose of this argument, they are the same. The primary thing that UL is testing for is product safety, i.e. keeping those appliances from killing you. This is also what the FDA claims to do.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

No, the UL list goes through a simple checklist (simple, if you have an EE degree). The FDA process is complicated, takes many years, and has long lasting effects. If a toaster doesn't work, you can throw it out. If a drug doesn't work, you end up with a generation or two of children with no arms.

[selki.livejournal.com]

things libertarians don;t want our tax money going to are handouts to the people who refuse to work for a living or are getting paid to pump out babies,

I challenge you to quote a Republican, Democrat, or any taxpayer who feels differently.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

It's easier to test an appliance than a drug, but that doesn't mean that drug testing can't be done by an indpendent private company.