3 ms·
That's because at its heart, libertarianism started with a number of good ideas. It was more or less born as American political scientists et all learned about
by ep103 12y ago
That's because at its heart, libertarianism started with a number of good ideas. It was more or less born as American political scientists et all learned about the limits of governmental regulation, regulatory capture, and the limits and downsides of the American system of labor union negotiation and membership, and attempted to find a better alternative.
I think the problem, and this is just a personal theory, is that many libertarian ideas need to come in duplets or triplets to be effective. Take carbon emissions for a quick (and not completely accurate) example. I've had conversations with libertarians that have argued that carbon emissions should not be fined, capped, traded, or in any way regulated. Basically, when the people care enough about the environment, they will vote effectively with their dollars.
Crazily enough, this could actually work, but it needs help. Either carbon emissions would have to be valued (so that companies had to pay to emit carbon, most likely via a tax), or all products would be required to state how much carbon was emitted in that item's production, as well as educated as to what that meant, so they could make an informed decision.
In reality, the first idea will be picked up and heavily trumpeted by the energy industry (no government taxation!), but the follow up ideas will be completely ignored or torpedoed. As a result, you end up with the type of modern American Libertarianism you describe. The more this sort of selective trumpeting occurs, the more self-describing libertarians will self-select membership, and the more radical the group may become.
That nolan chart is a great example. When I first saw it, it was and still is a great way of introducing people to various types of political theories. But the example you linked is horrendous. The questions underneath the economic freedom section are incredibly misleading, and the result of decades of selective trumpeting. They are NOT the same questions I was shown when I was originally shown the nolan chart all those years ago.
- wpietri 12y agoWow, I didn't even read the questions on the chart; I just assumed it was the same. Yeah, that is very different than what I saw. > many libertarian ideas need to come in duplets or triplets Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. I think markets are really neat mechanisms for balancing outcomes, but they require certain conditions to work. I also think there's a certain kind of ignoring-air-resistance theme common to a lot of the sort of Libertarianism I find dangerous. E.g., the "let people vote with their dollars" thing. It can work reasonably well for issues where people have enough time and attention to devote, where the results of their choices are relatively clear, and where people get to make choices frequently enough to build up a body of knowledge. But all that subtlety gets discarded, with arguments seeming to come from an assumption of perfect information, perfect rationality, and infinite processing power. It all feels very fundamentalist to me. Of course, a positive feedback loop like you describe, one that radicalizes, would head toward fundamentalism.
- ep103 12y agoyeah, exactly. Just like in the carbon emissions example, let the people vote with their dollars only makes sense if there is governmental regulation ensuring the people both get accurate information to make decisions, are educated to understand the decision, and that the people's market decisions will be large enough to steer the market. All three of these points are regularly ignored, however, while the first "let the people vote with their dollars", will be loudly trumpeted by whatever industry is being discussed. Over time, you get a "libertarian" population that isn't even aware that their position requires the regulations I just mentioned, but have been taught that regulations are "bad" by industry. Its a bit like watching a group petition Ford motors to make an electric car, but one without any batteries because batteries are dangerous and expensive, and then get confused and upset with Ford's "corruption" and the "inability of corporations to do anything right" when Ford makes them an "electric" car with a gasoline engine.