Has the banking crisis killed libertarianism?

And it only takes a few with their hands on the levers of power to do huge amounts of damage. And I think you are confusing the number of big “L” Libertarians, who have their own party, and the much larger number of small “l” libertarians in the Republican Party.

There were plans; multiple, contradictory plans, which is one reason it’s been such a disaster. And yes, one of those plans was an attempt to libertarianize it at gunpoint, in order to turn it into a capitalist paradise that would prove the supremacy of the Free Market over all other solutions to problems. Their government’s resources were largely privatized, regulations gutted, their ability to tax gutted, and for some time it was insisted that no government money go to reconstruction, only private money. All by our orders, and in the name of the all powerful, all holy Free Market. The dead of Iraq were in part sacrifices to our deification of uncontrolled capitalism.

Beirut was a perfect Libertarian state for about 20 years after 1975. No government other than whatever each strongman could control within his personal reach. I have always thought that was exactly what a real Libertarian nation would look like.

Libertarianism != Anarchy.

Christ, you people don’t even understand what you’re bitching about (with some exceptions, hi RickJay).

If you’re not allowed to regulate anything, how exactly does libertarianism differ from anarchy? What exactly is government, if not a force of regulation?

First line of the article says that libertarianism seeks to minimize or even abolish the state. Again, I want YOU to tell me how libertarianism differs from anarchy.

But that isn’t really anarchy; it’s warlordism. THAT’S the kind of thing that libertarianism is about. Feudalism and semi-feudalism; a few strong individuals and groups grabbing all power and wealth, crushing everyone else into misery and slavery. The end of freedom, democracy and general prosperity; the triumph of greed and ruthlessness over all else.

While what you say here is true, you are conveniently forgetting the influence over the Republican party that think tanks like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute have. What I’ve seen from the Republican party over the last 2 decades is an ongoing effort to make sure that any regulatory act is convoluted and ineffective (like SOX) and to cripple the effectiveness of regulatory agencies (like the SEC and EPA) and then turn around and say “see, regulation doesn’t work, the government is inefficient, yada yada.”

I’m not in any way arguing that regulation is is always good or anything like that. What I am arguing is that Libertarianism is an intellectually bankrupt philosophy, the assumptions of which fail to survive a sophomoric level of scrutiny. No, we’ve never had a pure Libertarian government, but if you can’t admit that libertarian ideals have motivated the actions or non-actions of many congressional Republicans or regulators like Greenspan than you are being willfully blind.

Is the suggestion that only a TRUE libertarian can do libertarian policies. The libertarian concepts have been voiced by this admin and endless economic policies have espoused them. While they may not be dues paying party members, they certainly have followed the policies. Greenspan is just one of many. CNBC has had them on for years crowing about how the financial pros require no oversight. Now suddenly regulators should have done their jobs. They slashed their budgets and compromised all efforts to regulate. Now it is the regulators fault. The government should have known better. The people should have known better.

In response again. No, they haven’t. Not even close. Bush and his group are about as far from libertarianism as is possible to get. Heck, I’m not even a Libertarian or a Neocon or a Paleocon or a whatever. I dont’ even have a dog in the fight. But Bush is way far away from the very small libertarian advocates in the U. S. And yeah, there are a few think-tanks, but their influence is very small and indirect, and they have been overridden by political concerns for pretty much ever.

Aside from which, Libertarianism is very wide idea which did in fact work, and no one complained when the completely-foreseeable good side was cranking out jobs and cash like hotcakes. It is only now, when a new phenomonena and new business practice, combined with ample bad government regulation, caused a heap of problems do people complain. Well, perhapsd you’re directing your anger at the wrong target.

But hey, what I am talking about here? You are all obviously geniuses at understanding financial markets, right? You apparently know a lot more than the (relative) free-marketer people who did in fact warn about the possible problems. And of course your heroes on the left surely knew better and the fact they blocked better, wiser regulation was just coincidence.

People who know nothing about business or marketing often seem to think that some evil businessmen can handily manipulate the market or somehow make out like bandits. Ah, no. They usually go broke trying. It doesn’t matter how may idiots there are; the nature of competition is that the tougher it get the more idiots get culled. Evolution says the weak die and the strong survive, and it’s as ironclad in business as it is in nature.

If you look at business today, it is constant, unceasing global competition. Prices MUST come down and they must come down faster. So they do. Service MUST increase and it must increase faster. So it does. Companies MUST compete globally in order to survive. So they desperately do so. And the results have in fact been quite good from a consumer’s standpoint. DVD machines fell in price from 400 pounds to under 40 in around 3 years (where is took VHS machines something like 10). That’s not because technology was different, but because companies couldn’t afford not to.

The markets these days are brutal, and opportunities for “idiots” to somehow make out good are few or nonexistant. In the most recent troubles, the “idiots” went broke.

Alan Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve Bank for 19 plus years, is a libertarian and follows a libertarian philosophy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402451_2.html?hpid=topnews He calls himself a libertarian. He was a member of Ayn Rand’s inner circle http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin and helped her with Atlas Shrugged.

It is reality that the head banker in America for two decades implemented libertarian philosophy, is a libertarian and was a confidant and admirer of the Anti-Christ Ayn Rand.

Now the people who follow libertarianism today are still fantasists. They ignore that this crisis was precipitated by a libertarian following libertarian principles because that very crucial bit of reality interferes with with their religion. People have been doing this since the dawn of civilization. It is no different than communism: the only communists left are the ones who ignore the reality that communism didn’t work.

Bush and his disciples were pro war. In that regard they are not Libertarian. But they did believe if you keep your hand off business and financial institutions they will work it out to the betterment of society. Greenspan is not the only one who followed that line . It is not only wrong but illogical. We have a history of unfettered business looting the system for all they can. The idea that self regulation works is a silly idea. It coincides with libertarianism. The state needs to intervene to protect the people from corporations.
CNBC has endlessly fought all regulation. They spoke for the businessmen and financial leaders. They were unabashedly libertarian and proud of it. Recent events have them reversing their stands. I would think everyone could learn from this mess.

Okay, so there’s no agreement about whether or not the banking crisis has killed libertarianism (hell, there’s not even any agreement about what libertarianism is).

Can everyone at least agree that the banking crisis has killed the proposal to privatize Social Security?

Maybe establishing some common ground will provide a point from which to move forward.

There is no real argument about what libertarianism is…just a lot of apparent ignorance about what it is and what it isn’t. Conversely there is a lot of ignorance about Socialism and what it is (and isn’t)…and who advocates it.

Well…there is really two aspects to the answer to this question. First off, privatized social security I think has pretty much been killed long before this crisis…for a number of reasons. Secondly though, again, you are trying to draw conclusions that aren’t completely inclusive of the facts. Privatized social security shouldn’t be dead because of THIS crisis…they have nothing to do with each other. Just as libertarian philosophy has nothing to do with this crisis. Each is a separate and discrete.

Except in the minds of those who really don’t know much about any of the aspects of this subject of course. But you’ve already had replies from some of them in this thread so you can base things on either viewpoint if you like.

I don’t see where the common ground is to be honest. Anyone who thinks Bush et al are libertarians is, frankly, clueless. Bush is about as far from a libertarian as Obama is…in fact, I think Obama might be CLOSER to a libertarian than Bush is. The current crisis has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy…and libertarians weren’t responsible in the least for it. It would be like saying that communist philosophy has been disproved because of the current crisis, or that communists should pack up and go home because of it. The assertion makes no sense.

And none of this has anything to do with privatizing social security…or NOT privatizing it. This is a complete disconnect. So…I’m not seeing how we could find common ground on this. People who don’t know anything about what libertarianism is are going to see common ground and agree with you. Those who, like me, have some limited knowledge of the subject are going to scratch their head and go ‘huh?’. Those with an indepth knowledge of this subject are going to take one look at this thread, roll their eyes, and go somewhere else.

-XT

The banking philosophy has been put in place by Greenspan, who is a libertarian and has been following a libertarian philosophy. Your argument ignores that fact and the fact that everyone in Washington used to treat Greenspan’s pronouncements as prophecies. While the Bushistas are not strict libertarians, their economic polices have been. You’ve ignored Greenspan’s role in this and that is intellectually dishonest. Even Greenspan acknowledges that he made mistakes and that those mistakes were poor oversight.

God, this board sucks. Is that really your reasoning?

How about this one. I think it makes about as much sense.

Banking oversight (that is accountable to the electorate) is done by Congressional committees chaired by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who are Democrats and who have been following Democratic party philosophies. Your argument ignores that fact and the fact that they have control over banking legislation and a considerable amount of oversight. While Frank and Dodd are not strict anti-libertarians their economic polices have been. You’ve ignored Frank’s and Dodd’s role in this and that is intellectually dishonest.

The one difference is that, of course, Frank and Dodd have not acknowledged that they have made mistakes.

Really? Show me the evidence of their influence. Real evidence, not “George Bush takes their calls.”

Do Republican governments (in recent years) reduce spending? Well, no, quite the opposite - they jack spending up every chance they get. Do they get the state out of the citizen’s life? Quite the opposite, it would appear. Do they reduce regulation? On the whole, actually, they do nothing of the sort; for every example you can show me of deregulation, I’ll show you more regulation. PATRIOT Act? Department of Homeland Security? For Christ’s sake, Republicans want to pass a flag burning amendment. Where in the hell is all the libertarianism?

You’d have far more luck proving Bill Clinton was a libertarian than you would George W. Bush.

Of course, we are discussing libertarian economic policy. (Unless you are contending the Patriot Act or flag burning have anything to do with the banking crisis.)

nevermind

So…if I understand you here, your entire theory centers on the ‘fact’ that Allan Greenspan was a supposed libertarian and following a libertarian philosophy? Can you point to some libertarian policies he pushed through?

See, the thing is that libertarians don’t believe in ANY government (or quasi-government) controls…like, for example, the adjusting of interest rates (artificially) which was one of the factors that brought about the housing bubble. Even if I agreed that Greenspan was a libertarian, it’s like saying Bush is an economic conservative…you can SAY it all you like, but show me the money. Show me the libertarian policies put in place because frankly I ain’t seein’ em.

Well, YOUR argument rests on Greenspan being a libertarian AND pushing through a libertarian agenda…and you haven’t proven either. I concede that Greenspan was an adherent of Ayn Rand (which, you know, isn’t the same thing as being a libertarian)…but I see no sign that his policies reflect his personal philosophy. You do realize that the Chairman of the Fed doesn’t have carte blanche to push through anything he wants…right?

Really? Then it should be no problem for you to show some examples from the Bushistas clearly denoting libertarian economic policies…right? Please do so.

Not at all. Had you bothered to ask first I would have told you that I don’t believe that Greenspan has pushed through anything even remotely resembling libertarian economic policy…regardless of what his personal philosophy is. Sort of like Bush…while personally he seems opposed to abortion, favors prayer in school, etc etc, he hasn’t DONE anything about it since he’s been in office. He hasn’t pushed through a fundamentalist social philosophy…only made noises about it, paid lip service to it.

Instead of calling me intellectually dishonest by handwaving about Greenspan, why don’t you SHOW me some of these libertarian policies he has enacted? While you are at it you can back up your assertions that Bush et al have also followed a libertarian economic plan as well.

I will await your proofs with hopeful anticipation…

Well…yeah. He fucked up by the numbers. It’s big of him to admit it…and I mean that truly, since it seems that a lot of our politicians who also fucked up can’t bring themselves to admit it (nor, for that matter, do many in private industry who also fucked up). However, your entire argument hinges on Greenspan not only being a libertarian but also following a libertarian economic agenda…so, lets see some specific policies he enacted that clearly show such a libertarian agenda, ehe? Otherwise what you have is a guy who may have a personal philosophy sort of in line with libertarian ideals (though most Randian’s aren’t actually all that fond of libertarians), but hasn’t actually done more than pay lip service to those ideals. Of course, there is a good reason why he didn’t…but no point in complicating things at this point.

Thanks in advance for your numerous and accurate examples.

-XT