I often make common cause with self-styled libertarians on social issues, police brutality, military overreach, and the like. Where I differ greatly is on economic issues, for the basic reason that libertarians generally pretend that all individuals start from an equal bargaining position. R.J. Eskow has a piece at Salon called “11 questions to see if libertarians are hypocrites” that hits on pretty much all of the issues I have with the Ayn Rand style of libertarianism. Here are a few choice quotes.
On the lack of libertarian societies throughout history:
At no time or place in human history has there been a working libertarian society which provided its people with the kinds of outcomes libertarians claim it will provide. But libertarianism’s self-created mythos claims that it’s more realistic than other ideologies, which is the opposite of the truth. The slope from that contradiction to the deep well of hypocrisy is slippery, steep—and easy to identify.
On libertarians’ narrow definition of “order”:
The [Cato] Institute cites “spontaneous order,” for example, as “the great insight of libertarian social analysis.” Cato defines that principle thusly:
“… (O)rder in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes.”
To which the discerning reader might be tempted to ask: Like where, exactly? Libertarians define “spontaneous order” in a very narrow way—one that excludes demonstrations like the Arab Spring, elections which install progressive governments, or union movements, to name three examples. And yet each of these things are undertaken by individuals who “coordinated their actions with those of others” to achieve our purposes.
On the disconnect between “wealth” and “production” in today’s world:
Today nearly 50 percent of corporate profits come from the financial sector—that is, from the manipulation of money. It’s more difficult to define “production,” and even harder to find its “virtue,” when the creation of wealth no longer necessarily leads to the creation of jobs, or economic growth, or anything except the enrichment of a few.
On how deregulation does not increase “liberty” for everyone:
[V]ictims of illegal foreclosure are neither “freer” nor “more prosperous” after the government deregulation which led to their exploitation. What’s more, deregulation has led to a series of documented banker crimes that include stockholder fraud and investor fraud.
On how “digital libertarians” may be the biggest hypocrites of all:
[H]ow did [PayPal creator] Peter Thiel and other Internet billionaires become wealthy? They hired government-educated employees to develop products protected by government copyrights. Those products used government-created computer technology and a government-created communications web to communicate with government-educated customers in order to generate wealth for themselves, which was then stored in government-protected banks—after which they began using that wealth to argue for the elimination of government.
Finally, he points out that libertarians’ idea of the few proper roles of government is entirely self- serving:
Many libertarians will counter by saying that government has only two valid functions: to protect the national security and enforce intellectual property laws. By why only these two? If the mythical free market can solve any problem, including protecting the environment, why can’t it also protect us from foreign invaders and defend the copyrights that make these libertarians wealthy?
For that matter, why should these libertarians be allowed to hold patents at all? If the free market can decide how best to use our national resources, why shouldn’t it also decide how best to use Peter Thiel’s ideas, and whether or not to reward him for them?
It’s a fair question. I can’t help but notice that the typical libertarian concept of “liberty” often only benefits libertarians themselves, while exacerbating economic inequality for others. Of course, libertarians tell themselves that those people are just the “takers,” ignoring the myriad circumstances that put these “takers” on an unequal footing.
It’s not even really worth arguing about, because lived experience disproves libertarian economic thought every day. The problem is that it’s going to hurt a lot of people before it gets sent back to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
