The support of libertarians for big business is another debunked myth. So long as these enterprises are compatible with genuine free-market capitalism, fine. But because so many seek subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of coerced largesse, they do not carry the banner of libertarianism. FULL ARTICLE by Fergus Hodgson
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15500/libertarianism-for-dummies/
Libertarianism for Dummies!
Previous post: A Soviet Foreign Policy: A Revisionist Perspective
Next post: Bureaucrat on Bureaucrat Crime
{ 8 comments }
Hodgson named the main complaint I had with the book:
“Huebert’s focus on incremental court battles and intricacies of American politics, probably on account of his legal profession, based in Ohio, is the greatest flaw of Libertarianism Today.”
Heubert had a whole chapter on gun rights, but it was mostly about what strategy some guns rights activists are up to these days. I kept thinking (and I’m an American), “Who cares!?!? This book is supposed to explain what libertarianism is to newcomers, not let libertarians know how well their battles in the government courts are going (which will be outdated by tomorrow). What a waste of space!”
It kills me even more because in the back of the book he says, “Regrettably, this book lacks space to address libertarian solutions to environmental problems.” To the average person, court battles are boring and wont give them the knowledge they need to win any arguments!
Same thing with the Fighting in the Courts Chapter where he says:
“In this chapter, we will look at the brand of ‘‘judicial activism’’ some libertarians have been promoting in the courts, including the theory behind it, their strategy, and particular cases they have pursued. We will also consider the views of other libertarians who are skeptical of this approach—who think the best constitutional strategy is to play the states against the federal government under the Tenth Amendment, or think that libertarians should reject the Constitution entirely.”
At the end of the chapter he says this:
“As an anarchist, Hasnas proposes a free market in law as in everything else—a topic we regrettably lack space to address.”
Besides my disappointment and confusion at some of the topics discussed, the book is a great intro for newcomers and I did send copies to two of my friends. There’s still room though for an “ultimate” introduction to libertarianism today.
Contact your Representative and Senators to co-sponsor legislation to Audit The Federal Reserve!! HR459 in the House, S202 in the Senate!
New page on facebook, please like it and forward it to your friends! let’s get the message out there!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Audit-the-Federal-Reserve-Support-HR-459 -S-202/152095161512755
Libertarianism is preferable to leftism of all varieties, but ultimately it fails, both logically and pragmatically. Besides its inability to determine logically the age at which property rights should be assigned (“children’s rights”), it completely fails wrt issues of foreign policy and national defense. If we had a libertarian planet, it might work, but in a world of predatory states, the anarchist society simply wouldn’t survive. It would generate tremendous wealth, which would then be coveted by poorer nation-states. Libertarians would try to start private defense companies, but the much maligned free rider problem would come up. Lots of people would say “who cares? leave me alone”, with the ultimate result of no or insufficient defense, and soon the game would be up. Imagine Israel suddenly becoming anarchocapitalist! Think it would survive? Most military planners would think not.
And what about the slow-mo invasion of immigration? Yes, there is the Hoppe solution, but even that is insufficient. Some greedy businesses in endless search for cheap labor would bring in ever more foreigners – until one day the foreigners would effectively rule the roost. The libertarian might then sue at (private!) law, but laws must have force to back them up.
There is no escaping the hard burden of political choice, and the essential need for a permanent, centralized locus of public violence. And yes, I support Austrianism, have studied Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, etc, and remain unpersuaded.
Says you!
Seriously, there are answers to your objections, but you’ve probably already heard them. Suffice it to say that you aren’t making much of an argument for your position, but merely asserting it.
I make several arguments above: children’s rights, defense v free riders, immigration as passive invasion.
The problems have been addressed in ancap books. I’ll just summarise some of the counterarguments:
- people become “full bearers of rights” (I’m using vague term just for demonstration purposes) when they start exercising them. A child unbecomes a child when he makes himself independent (e.g. gets a job)
- no matter how the society is organised, some level of freeriding is unavoidable, because causality extends to infinity. With regards to defence, your argument would only be valid if the state was somehow better able to better estimate the future from the perspective of private property dangers and able to better allocate resources to provide solutions for it. For the first one I find no logical reason and economic calculation argument refutes the second one.
- I see no point in the slow-mo invasion argument. You argue that somehow currently states prevent that? I find that doubtful.
Leon,
Your post shows that you have chosen rather narrow boundaries to constrain your thinking. Your readers need not follow your lead. To accept the prevailing reality of our human society as if it has reached its endpoint, as you seem to do, is also to act to perpetuate it.
The problems of “national defense”, “foreign policy” and “immigration” will be voided not solved in the normal sense of the word. Your complaint about property rights has me confused about your specific concern. There is still much to discuss about property, rights and ownership. You are always welcome to contribute if you so choose.
Another person’s dissatisfaction with the status quo may subject you to the annoyance of their complaints, but without dissatisfaction there is little motive to form ideas for improvement. You do realize that one day the last dissatisfied person may be you, and the best idea in the world may be yours.
Cordially,
Don
“…because so many seek subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of coerced largesse, they do not carry the banner of libertarianism.”
Then why does mises.org have good things to say about Spookle and Spookbook? They hardly are market-based success stories, but rather have been subsidized from the start by three-letter agencies.
Comments on this entry are closed.