5 ms·

No, no, no. Libertarianism is not the philosophy that free markets will never crash. Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong,

by Dilpil 18y ago

No, no, no. Libertarianism is not the philosophy that free markets will never crash. Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong, and many libertarians believe that it is always eventually destructive. The article does not address the bigger question: What government intervention would have prevented this? The article is disturbing because not only does it lack rigorous logical arguments, it openly mocks libertarians for using them. This kind of anti intellectual attitude is common among republicans, but I am surprised to see slate publish an article that espouses it.

aswanson 18y ago
Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong In every case? Does this make logical sense? How can this be justified for all possible conditions and outcomes?
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  Technically, "the idea that government intervention is morally wrong" when combined with "in every case" is anarchism, obviously. Most libertarians (big and little L) believe the government does have a few legitimate roles, often including national defense (and not offense) and defense of basic human rights (via police and a court system). Libertarians are an extremely argumentative bunch, and you'll be hard pressed to find two who believe the exact same things. Keeping a libertarian "on message" would be an exercise in frustration...which I guess is one reason why none ever get elected. I'm a card-carrying member of the LP, though ethically, the purity of anarchism is appealing to me. Regardless, I'd be perfectly content, and would feel very much less disenfranchised and poorly represented, with a government that looked a lot like the one originally envisioned by our founding fathers, which is, I guess, "Republican" in the traditional sense.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    Just to clarify, there is a simple general principle at work: the government should provide only public goods (1). The main dispute among libertarians is which goods qualify as public goods (e.g., is fire protection public or private?). (1) A public good is one that is non-rivalrous and non-exclusive. Protection from commies is a public good (a dead commie isn't robbing you or me). Cheese fries are not (every fry I eat is one you can't).
    - SwellJoe 18y ago
      Agreed, but you guys can have my cheese fries. That doesn't make me a communist. I just don't like cheese fries.
      - jimbokun 18y ago
        Yea, but what about Freedom Fries?
Prrometheus 18y ago
>Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong There is a utilitarian branch of libertarianism that argues that free markets are best for society. It does not predict that free markets eliminate economic fluctuations, only that society will be better off with free markets over the long term. This branch of libertarianism is filled with many of the libertarian economists. Also, I don't think those libertarians would see our credit markets pre-crash as being a shining model of libertarianism.
- earthboundkid 18y ago
  Yeah, I personally think that the moral argument against government intervention is bunk. That said, I do think there's a strong consequentialist argument to be made for markets and against regulation. To me, this seems like the basic position of eg. Reason Magazine, Wil Wilkinson, etc.
- walterk 18y ago
  Being something of a utilitarian myself, I see intervention being necessary when market incentives are not aligned with what's best for society. I've never seen anybody make a convincing case that such misalignments do not exist, or that a free market is always able to account for them more efficiently than the state. EDIT: Feel free to make such a case or link to one. I'd like to be proven wrong.
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    David Friedman is a utilitarian libertarian anarchist, son of the famous Milton Friedman. In "The Machinery of Freedom" he makes his case for an anarchist society. He does not claim that markets are always better without state intervention. His claim is subtly different: that a society without a state is better off than a society with one. He leaves open the possibility that the state might be better at some things than the market, but he argues that the drawbacks of a state outweigh the possible benefits. David's son, Patri, runs the anarcho-capitalist Seasteading Institute, which aims to create seastead societies on the ocean (think "Water World", without the suck). He believes that seasteads will be more resistant to government monopoly, since a group of people who did not like their government could simply float to a different one. Given the results so far, other libertarians encourage the Friedmans to breed as much as possible.
walterk 18y ago
> No, no, no. Libertarianism is not the philosophy that free markets will never crash. I don't think the author ever made that claim. You'll notice he links to a range of arguments, running the spectrum from "government intervention is to blame for the crisis" to "let crises take their due course." > Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong I'm curious as to what bases libertarians (particularly those reading HN) rely upon to justify this claim. I've read Nozick, and for a year or two I was actually a staunch objectivist. (I went to an objectivist meeting once and think I scared some of the attendees by insisting upon a fixed-sum tax rather than a flat-rate.) What are the major reasons why libertarians believe government intervention is morally wrong, and what works would you cite as persuasively making the case?
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Leaving aside the moral issue, there's no reason to believe government intervention would have improved the situation in either the short or long term. It's easy enough to look back in hindsight and say what could have been done, but governments don't intervene in hindsght. And even if they could, it's quite possible that what we're dealing with now will make us stronger in the long term, whereas were it prevented we may have been weakened. It's just too unknowable to say, and too easy to point back in hindsight and say "here's where government could have helped." Unfortunately, that's not very useful.
  - walterk 18y ago
    I honestly don't know enough about the situation to say what could have been done, if anything (which makes me incapable of knowing whether your claim of unknowability is true :P). But while governments don't intervene in hindsight, driving ideologies largely determine what possibilities a person pays attention to, and thus the capacity of their foresight.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  If you read Nozick and were once an Objectivist, then I would guess that you've been exposed to most of the popular libertarian moral arguments.
Tichy 18y ago
"Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong" Since morals are just a substitute for lack of knowledge, that seems kind of silly. So libertarianism is a kind of religion?
- thomasmallen 18y ago
  If libertarianism is a kind of religion, then The Wealth of Nations is a theological work. Give me a break.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    I haven't read "The Wealth Of Nations", but I thought it was an economics book, not a libertarians manifesto.

by Dilpil 18y ago

aswanson 18y ago

Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong In every case? Does this make logical sense? How can this be justified for all possible conditions and outcomes?

SwellJoe 18y ago
Technically, "the idea that government intervention is morally wrong" when combined with "in every case" is anarchism, obviously. Most libertarians (big and little L) believe the government does have a few legitimate roles, often including national defense (and not offense) and defense of basic human rights (via police and a court system). Libertarians are an extremely argumentative bunch, and you'll be hard pressed to find two who believe the exact same things. Keeping a libertarian "on message" would be an exercise in frustration...which I guess is one reason why none ever get elected. I'm a card-carrying member of the LP, though ethically, the purity of anarchism is appealing to me. Regardless, I'd be perfectly content, and would feel very much less disenfranchised and poorly represented, with a government that looked a lot like the one originally envisioned by our founding fathers, which is, I guess, "Republican" in the traditional sense.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  Just to clarify, there is a simple general principle at work: the government should provide only public goods (1). The main dispute among libertarians is which goods qualify as public goods (e.g., is fire protection public or private?). (1) A public good is one that is non-rivalrous and non-exclusive. Protection from commies is a public good (a dead commie isn't robbing you or me). Cheese fries are not (every fry I eat is one you can't).
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    Agreed, but you guys can have my cheese fries. That doesn't make me a communist. I just don't like cheese fries.
    - jimbokun 18y ago
      Yea, but what about Freedom Fries?

Prrometheus 18y ago

>Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong There is a utilitarian branch of libertarianism that argues that free markets are best for society. It does not predict that free markets eliminate economic fluctuations, only that society will be better off with free markets over the long term. This branch of libertarianism is filled with many of the libertarian economists. Also, I don't think those libertarians would see our credit markets pre-crash as being a shining model of libertarianism.

earthboundkid 18y ago
Yeah, I personally think that the moral argument against government intervention is bunk. That said, I do think there's a strong consequentialist argument to be made for markets and against regulation. To me, this seems like the basic position of eg. Reason Magazine, Wil Wilkinson, etc.
walterk 18y ago
Being something of a utilitarian myself, I see intervention being necessary when market incentives are not aligned with what's best for society. I've never seen anybody make a convincing case that such misalignments do not exist, or that a free market is always able to account for them more efficiently than the state. EDIT: Feel free to make such a case or link to one. I'd like to be proven wrong.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  David Friedman is a utilitarian libertarian anarchist, son of the famous Milton Friedman. In "The Machinery of Freedom" he makes his case for an anarchist society. He does not claim that markets are always better without state intervention. His claim is subtly different: that a society without a state is better off than a society with one. He leaves open the possibility that the state might be better at some things than the market, but he argues that the drawbacks of a state outweigh the possible benefits. David's son, Patri, runs the anarcho-capitalist Seasteading Institute, which aims to create seastead societies on the ocean (think "Water World", without the suck). He believes that seasteads will be more resistant to government monopoly, since a group of people who did not like their government could simply float to a different one. Given the results so far, other libertarians encourage the Friedmans to breed as much as possible.

walterk 18y ago

> No, no, no. Libertarianism is not the philosophy that free markets will never crash. I don't think the author ever made that claim. You'll notice he links to a range of arguments, running the spectrum from "government intervention is to blame for the crisis" to "let crises take their due course." > Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong I'm curious as to what bases libertarians (particularly those reading HN) rely upon to justify this claim. I've read Nozick, and for a year or two I was actually a staunch objectivist. (I went to an objectivist meeting once and think I scared some of the attendees by insisting upon a fixed-sum tax rather than a flat-rate.) What are the major reasons why libertarians believe government intervention is morally wrong, and what works would you cite as persuasively making the case?

mattmaroon 18y ago
Leaving aside the moral issue, there's no reason to believe government intervention would have improved the situation in either the short or long term. It's easy enough to look back in hindsight and say what could have been done, but governments don't intervene in hindsght. And even if they could, it's quite possible that what we're dealing with now will make us stronger in the long term, whereas were it prevented we may have been weakened. It's just too unknowable to say, and too easy to point back in hindsight and say "here's where government could have helped." Unfortunately, that's not very useful.
- walterk 18y ago
  I honestly don't know enough about the situation to say what could have been done, if anything (which makes me incapable of knowing whether your claim of unknowability is true :P). But while governments don't intervene in hindsight, driving ideologies largely determine what possibilities a person pays attention to, and thus the capacity of their foresight.
Prrometheus 18y ago
If you read Nozick and were once an Objectivist, then I would guess that you've been exposed to most of the popular libertarian moral arguments.

Tichy 18y ago

"Libertarianism is the idea that government intervention is morally wrong" Since morals are just a substitute for lack of knowledge, that seems kind of silly. So libertarianism is a kind of religion?

thomasmallen 18y ago
If libertarianism is a kind of religion, then The Wealth of Nations is a theological work. Give me a break.
- Tichy 18y ago
  I haven't read "The Wealth Of Nations", but I thought it was an economics book, not a libertarians manifesto.