41 ms·

I would agree that the crash doesn't refute libertarianism to the extent that libertarianism demands a completely free market. On the other hand, the chances o

by walterk 18y ago

I would agree that the crash doesn't refute libertarianism to the extent that libertarianism demands a completely free market. On the other hand, the chances of libertarians getting their way in a large-scale society like the US is exactly nil, and there's an excellent case to be made that injecting libertarian-motivated policies in a non-libertarian environment, for no reason beyond their agreement with libertarian ideology, can be more disastrous than the alternatives. I have a friend who was beginning to think anarchism was the way to go, but I nipped that thought in the bud by pointing out that the arguments for anarchism are highly intellectual and incapable of swaying the masses. The same is true of libertarianism. Democratic and socialist revolutions had their origins in highly intellectual arguments, but the confrontations their ideologies demanded were easily translated into something that the non-intellectual populace could forcibly get behind (to whatever extend this was actually necessary). It's hard to see how you'd sway a majority of the American populace into backing the sort of completely free market libertarians want to see. And if that's not doable, libertarian proponents would better spend their time figuring out how to make a decidedly interventionist society work more efficiently.

TomOfTTB 18y ago
I agree that we’ll probably never see true, pure libertarianism in American Society. But part of guiding society (as you suggest) is trying to push it towards an ideal even if you know it will never fully reach that ideal. The issue here is "what ideology led to our current economic problems" and the author (and yters above) is trying to say these 3 men claimed to adhere to libertarian principles so that means libertarianism caused this problem. That’s simply not true. The fact is this problem started when the U.S. government started encouraging loans to people with bad credit (which started with Bill Clinton but has continued through the Bush Administration). Banks felt empowered to give risky loans because they were all but guaranteed (and through this bail out actually guaranteed) by the U.S. Government. This was done during the tenure of the men being mentioned above and is the antithesis of libertarian ideals. So the question is never "will we ever achieve a true libertarian society" its "how can we push society to be as libertarian as possible." The biggest component in doing that is making sure libertarian principles don’t get blamed for things they weren’t responsible for.
- walterk 18y ago
  > But part of guiding society (as you suggest) is trying to push it towards an ideal even if you know it will never fully reach that ideal. Right, but again, my point is that pushing for libertarian-motivated policies for no reason other than that they agree with libertarian ideology doesn't always make sense given the ecology of non-libertarian policies they have to interact with. It can make things worse. If there's to be any pushing towards an ideal, it has to be done in a way that ensures the stability of the modified system. If it doesn't, those making the push are justifiably responsible for the problems that arise.
  - TomOfTTB 18y ago
    Look, clearly people should use their best judgment when making decisions and I don’t think anyone is saying otherwise. But you’re pushing compromise as an ideal and that’s just wrong. An ideal is an ideal and compromise is what people do to make their ideals compatible and create an actual system of government. So what you want comes out in the process because, as you said, a society run by politicians is going to be interventionist by its very nature and people with Libertarian ideas are going to have to compromise. But if the people with Libertarian ideals don’t come to the table firm in their own beliefs they end up compromising even more than they normally would. Which (bringing it back to the housing bubble) is exactly how we ended up in this situation. People with libertarian views were willing to compromise to the point where what actually got implemented is the polar opposite of libertarianism and the result was disaster.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - netcan 18y ago
      There is a problem with the type of ideal you describe. If (as previous comments suggest) libertarian ideal is something that only works in its entirety, then introducing a 'libertarian law' outside of a libertarian system is damaging. It may be a step towards the completion of you ideal in a very general way, but if it doesn't get you closer to it, doesn't improve the intermediary state etc. etc. , then it's not a good law.
rsheridan6 18y ago
> On the other hand, the chances of libertarians getting their way in a large-scale society like the US is exactly nil, and there's an excellent case to be made that injecting libertarian-motivated policies in a non-libertarian environment, for no reason beyond their agreement with libertarian ideology, can be more disastrous than the alternatives. Exactly; the funny thing about government intervention is that it ends up creating a need for more government intervention. Regarding the current financial debacle, a libertarian might oppose further regulation of financial institutions, but given the reality that the government has proven that it will bail them out when the going gets tough, they would probably just create the same problems again. A libertarian would just say that we shouldn't bail them out, and maybe they're right, but a half-successful libertarian campaign would just result in more "heads I win tails you lose" bets by the financial sector and would be worse than either a more heavily regulated economy or (if the libertarians are right) an unregulated economy.

by walterk 18y ago

TomOfTTB 18y ago

I agree that we’ll probably never see true, pure libertarianism in American Society. But part of guiding society (as you suggest) is trying to push it towards an ideal even if you know it will never fully reach that ideal. The issue here is "what ideology led to our current economic problems" and the author (and yters above) is trying to say these 3 men claimed to adhere to libertarian principles so that means libertarianism caused this problem. That’s simply not true. The fact is this problem started when the U.S. government started encouraging loans to people with bad credit (which started with Bill Clinton but has continued through the Bush Administration). Banks felt empowered to give risky loans because they were all but guaranteed (and through this bail out actually guaranteed) by the U.S. Government. This was done during the tenure of the men being mentioned above and is the antithesis of libertarian ideals. So the question is never "will we ever achieve a true libertarian society" its "how can we push society to be as libertarian as possible." The biggest component in doing that is making sure libertarian principles don’t get blamed for things they weren’t responsible for.

walterk 18y ago
> But part of guiding society (as you suggest) is trying to push it towards an ideal even if you know it will never fully reach that ideal. Right, but again, my point is that pushing for libertarian-motivated policies for no reason other than that they agree with libertarian ideology doesn't always make sense given the ecology of non-libertarian policies they have to interact with. It can make things worse. If there's to be any pushing towards an ideal, it has to be done in a way that ensures the stability of the modified system. If it doesn't, those making the push are justifiably responsible for the problems that arise.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  Look, clearly people should use their best judgment when making decisions and I don’t think anyone is saying otherwise. But you’re pushing compromise as an ideal and that’s just wrong. An ideal is an ideal and compromise is what people do to make their ideals compatible and create an actual system of government. So what you want comes out in the process because, as you said, a society run by politicians is going to be interventionist by its very nature and people with Libertarian ideas are going to have to compromise. But if the people with Libertarian ideals don’t come to the table firm in their own beliefs they end up compromising even more than they normally would. Which (bringing it back to the housing bubble) is exactly how we ended up in this situation. People with libertarian views were willing to compromise to the point where what actually got implemented is the polar opposite of libertarianism and the result was disaster.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - netcan 18y ago
    There is a problem with the type of ideal you describe. If (as previous comments suggest) libertarian ideal is something that only works in its entirety, then introducing a 'libertarian law' outside of a libertarian system is damaging. It may be a step towards the completion of you ideal in a very general way, but if it doesn't get you closer to it, doesn't improve the intermediary state etc. etc. , then it's not a good law.

rsheridan6 18y ago

> On the other hand, the chances of libertarians getting their way in a large-scale society like the US is exactly nil, and there's an excellent case to be made that injecting libertarian-motivated policies in a non-libertarian environment, for no reason beyond their agreement with libertarian ideology, can be more disastrous than the alternatives. Exactly; the funny thing about government intervention is that it ends up creating a need for more government intervention. Regarding the current financial debacle, a libertarian might oppose further regulation of financial institutions, but given the reality that the government has proven that it will bail them out when the going gets tough, they would probably just create the same problems again. A libertarian would just say that we shouldn't bail them out, and maybe they're right, but a half-successful libertarian campaign would just result in more "heads I win tails you lose" bets by the financial sector and would be worse than either a more heavily regulated economy or (if the libertarians are right) an unregulated economy.