RedStripe
04-24-2009, 07:21 AM
I want to explain my reasons for becoming a left-libertarian. I believe that the true roots of libertarianism are in the left, as Murray Rothbard explained, and that our "alliance" with the right is a relatively recent and potentially dangerous development.
For example, the recent tea party protests (which I fully support and applaud - anti-government protests of all stripes are awesome), illustrated the way in which establishment conservatives and 'beltway-libertarians' have begun to gravitate towards the message of less government, yet I fear that they may pervert our message and fundamentally undermine our purposes by not embracing the truly radical and anti-establishment nature of libertarianism.
Their talking points are limited to what I perceive to be a half-sincere call for limited government that is a veil for a quasi-free market, big business sympathy. Their opposition to economic interventionism and regulation barely scratches the surface, and thus has the two-fold effect of potentially empowering big-business as well as alienating a vast quantity of Americans who feel that "capitalism" is a flawed system that does need restraints, a social safety net, etc.
The fact is, while social welfare programs and things designed to help the poor are often ineffective and wasteful (and mostly bad b/c it makes the lower class dependent on and loyal to the state), at least they do put some money in the pockets of the poor (or in the case of labor standards, give wage-laborers a better bargaining position from the law). This is why Ron Paul always states that he's immediate concern is not cutting out the welfare apparatus that the poor/elderly are dependent on. There are MUCH bigger monsters to slay in the Federal budget.
Programs and regulations designed to help the poor, protect the consumers, and reduce massive wealth disparity do miss the point for the most part (band-aids and blood-letting to 'cure' an open wound), but they ARE designed to fix a truly artificial and unjust set of inequalities created by a rigged economic system that favors the rich (aka, State-Capitalism; economic interventionism for the benefit of the wealthy).
THAT must be the primary target of reform/abolishment: the tax code, property law - both intellectual and real, corporate 'personhood', tariffs, subsidization of communication and transportation infrastructure, direct corporate welfare such as the bailout, and, most important, a monopolized monetary system that benefits the biggest firms. But the mainstream defenders of the 'free market' (vulgar libertarians) turn a blind eye to these the most damaging and unfair interventions.
Focusing on 'deregulating' businesses who have a blank check from government and a multitude of special privileges built into the system is only going to amplify the effects of the rigged system. We need to focus on deregulation that has the effect of increasing competition and removing the special privileges before we go hog wild on 'deregulating' businesses in the sense that these faux free marketers (vulgar libertarians) advocate. It's no different than arguing for 'deregulation' of welfare benefits - saying that the government should just send people checks with no strings attached, no requirement to look for work, no proof of need, etc. It's just as irresponsible to let banks, which are, in all practicality, a fourth branch of the government, go crazy with the "alcohol" that the Fed/Government has handed them (to use Peter Schiff's analogy).
We are so far from a true free market that some defenders of free market principles confuse the supposed "capitalists" on Wall Street and in corporate executive boards with people who legitimately earn their wealth via free market competition. In doing so, they become apologists for big business and a system of State-Capitalism, and lose a lot of credibility with the average person who can smell a rat and intuitively knows that there is something deeply flawed and rigged about our system.
Favoring a free market instead of economic intervention does not mean defending the American system, for we have almost NEVER had a truly free market. Instead, it means being radically opposed to some of the most basic aspects of our society (such as extremely large, hierarchical corporations and massive wealth disparity) which are, like malinvestment and speculation, the result of artificial economic conditions created by more subtle interventionism. To the extent that America does enjoy a relatively prosperous middle class, high standard of living, sometimes-strong local economies, and a multitude of small businesses, we can thank our relatively free market economic system. But if we want to defeat those on the left and right who believe in interventionism, and more important, if we want to be honest with ourselves, we must root out and expose even the most fundamentally-flawed aspects of our system. If we can show the left (greens, in particular) that the inequalities and other things they despise and have failed to cure are the result of the state, we can undercut their entire argument for more government solutions to what are government-created problems.
Please keep this in mind next time you hear some CATO spokesperson calling for less taxes on corporations while ignoring things such as corporate personhood (CATO is not terrible, but they are 'meh' in my book). Please check out http://all-left.net (http://all-left.net) and Mutualism in particular.
Any thoughts on this? I know the distinction between left and right libertarianism isn't extremely clear, but I think it has more to do with visualizing the true impact of interventionism and how the government does far more in favor of the rich than the poor. It's possible to be a libertarian and detest corporations and the corporate culture, especially when you realize they would not exist but for the government's intervention in the market. I think it's really important to talk about this because I fear as though "libertarian" as a label is going to be more and more rejected by the left/progressives/greens if it gets co-opted by big business apologists.
For example, the recent tea party protests (which I fully support and applaud - anti-government protests of all stripes are awesome), illustrated the way in which establishment conservatives and 'beltway-libertarians' have begun to gravitate towards the message of less government, yet I fear that they may pervert our message and fundamentally undermine our purposes by not embracing the truly radical and anti-establishment nature of libertarianism.
Their talking points are limited to what I perceive to be a half-sincere call for limited government that is a veil for a quasi-free market, big business sympathy. Their opposition to economic interventionism and regulation barely scratches the surface, and thus has the two-fold effect of potentially empowering big-business as well as alienating a vast quantity of Americans who feel that "capitalism" is a flawed system that does need restraints, a social safety net, etc.
The fact is, while social welfare programs and things designed to help the poor are often ineffective and wasteful (and mostly bad b/c it makes the lower class dependent on and loyal to the state), at least they do put some money in the pockets of the poor (or in the case of labor standards, give wage-laborers a better bargaining position from the law). This is why Ron Paul always states that he's immediate concern is not cutting out the welfare apparatus that the poor/elderly are dependent on. There are MUCH bigger monsters to slay in the Federal budget.
Programs and regulations designed to help the poor, protect the consumers, and reduce massive wealth disparity do miss the point for the most part (band-aids and blood-letting to 'cure' an open wound), but they ARE designed to fix a truly artificial and unjust set of inequalities created by a rigged economic system that favors the rich (aka, State-Capitalism; economic interventionism for the benefit of the wealthy).
THAT must be the primary target of reform/abolishment: the tax code, property law - both intellectual and real, corporate 'personhood', tariffs, subsidization of communication and transportation infrastructure, direct corporate welfare such as the bailout, and, most important, a monopolized monetary system that benefits the biggest firms. But the mainstream defenders of the 'free market' (vulgar libertarians) turn a blind eye to these the most damaging and unfair interventions.
Focusing on 'deregulating' businesses who have a blank check from government and a multitude of special privileges built into the system is only going to amplify the effects of the rigged system. We need to focus on deregulation that has the effect of increasing competition and removing the special privileges before we go hog wild on 'deregulating' businesses in the sense that these faux free marketers (vulgar libertarians) advocate. It's no different than arguing for 'deregulation' of welfare benefits - saying that the government should just send people checks with no strings attached, no requirement to look for work, no proof of need, etc. It's just as irresponsible to let banks, which are, in all practicality, a fourth branch of the government, go crazy with the "alcohol" that the Fed/Government has handed them (to use Peter Schiff's analogy).
We are so far from a true free market that some defenders of free market principles confuse the supposed "capitalists" on Wall Street and in corporate executive boards with people who legitimately earn their wealth via free market competition. In doing so, they become apologists for big business and a system of State-Capitalism, and lose a lot of credibility with the average person who can smell a rat and intuitively knows that there is something deeply flawed and rigged about our system.
Favoring a free market instead of economic intervention does not mean defending the American system, for we have almost NEVER had a truly free market. Instead, it means being radically opposed to some of the most basic aspects of our society (such as extremely large, hierarchical corporations and massive wealth disparity) which are, like malinvestment and speculation, the result of artificial economic conditions created by more subtle interventionism. To the extent that America does enjoy a relatively prosperous middle class, high standard of living, sometimes-strong local economies, and a multitude of small businesses, we can thank our relatively free market economic system. But if we want to defeat those on the left and right who believe in interventionism, and more important, if we want to be honest with ourselves, we must root out and expose even the most fundamentally-flawed aspects of our system. If we can show the left (greens, in particular) that the inequalities and other things they despise and have failed to cure are the result of the state, we can undercut their entire argument for more government solutions to what are government-created problems.
Please keep this in mind next time you hear some CATO spokesperson calling for less taxes on corporations while ignoring things such as corporate personhood (CATO is not terrible, but they are 'meh' in my book). Please check out http://all-left.net (http://all-left.net) and Mutualism in particular.
Any thoughts on this? I know the distinction between left and right libertarianism isn't extremely clear, but I think it has more to do with visualizing the true impact of interventionism and how the government does far more in favor of the rich than the poor. It's possible to be a libertarian and detest corporations and the corporate culture, especially when you realize they would not exist but for the government's intervention in the market. I think it's really important to talk about this because I fear as though "libertarian" as a label is going to be more and more rejected by the left/progressives/greens if it gets co-opted by big business apologists.