True dat. If you go back a classic defintion of libertarian. However, libertarianism in the modern US means whatever someone calling themselves Libertarian says it means. There’s no there there. Haven’t heard LINO yet, but it can’t be far off…
LINOs took the floor with paleolibertarianism. Alternatively, since the definition of libertarian has shifted in the American lexicon, bleeding heart libertarians arguing from Utilitarian premises may seem to be LINOs.
Oh and there is a point when libertarian economists can make falsifiable predictions: when state actors have been eradicated completely. Just as the anarchy of production will end and people will reach self-actualisation through subsumption by the state.
I’m coming around to this POV. Two weeks ago I sympathized with this guy (whose book I haven’t gotten around to reading) but tonight I read half of ianzin’s free pdf and am thinking that the Dem’s messaging is all wrong. They need to develop a line of argument that makes people feel good about themselves, in other words they need some innocuous bullshit. It would be a supplement.
Milton Friedmanites want to keep more tax dollars to themselves as well. The difference is that Friedman was an empiricist while Ayn Rand’s work was economically and philosophically empty, though it had some genre appeal.
Agreed, but libertarian chatter papering over a big business faction should have some traction. Look at the Koch Bros., who are perfectly happy to absorb preferential tax treatment.
Authoritarian dictatorialism has very little traction in the Republican party, which is interesting. The closest they come to it is via voter suppression, which proves that their commitment to democracy is superficial. Still, they haven’t taken the next step. That said, methinks your point is reasonable, btw.
Of course Ayn Rand is a libertarian. She has even had some defenders on this board. I didn’t know you were an Austrian though.
Among academics, Austrian economics is fringe. It’s not crackpottery. But it is fringe. Analogous to Marxism - and that’s not snark: it’s an observation. You might find this mainstream attack interesting. Or not. As for Ayn Rand and academia, I understand that there are few specialist philosophers who attempt to shore up her thoughts.
Gerson appears to be a neocon, judging from wikipedia. FWIW.
It took me a while to parse this. I find it oddly reassuring that you (correctly in my view) put monetarists and keynesians in the same boat, though traditionally Milton Friedman and Bob Solow were considered ideological opponents. I’m not aware of the criticism that you are alluding to.
The rich just need the poor to be alive and compliant though. Their need is not co-extensive with the poor’s wants, so your point is not very meaningful.
I believe in libertarianism because I believe everyone should be free to do the things that I think it is appropriate for people to do. I believe in small government because I think government should under no circumstance be any larger than it needs to be to perform the functions I think appropriate. I believe in free speech because I think that everybody should be able to say things I agree with. I believe in the free market because I don’t want any restrictions on my ability to corner the market. I believe in conservatism because I don’t like any change that doesn’t make things how I like them to be.
I found this article on Ayn Rand enlightening.
I had to rush to get the last sentence in on time it was an ugly little thing. I was just trying to point out that austrians explain up front that empirical evidence isn’t reliable in economics. The others seek validation in economic outcomes almost entirely, unless of course what they predict doesn’t happen. For example Rothbard points out:
As for your mainstream critique. I am encountering some criticisms i’ve seen rebutted and others I have not. I still have a lot of reading to do.
You are sorting through paradigms which is hard work. Doubly so when there are fundamental methodological disagreements.
Speaking generally, my take is that there’s something seriously wrong with a description of the world/methodology that makes no allowance for observation, investigation and having the discipline to be tethered by fact. I’m not making accusations against Austrians here, as I don’t know enough about them frankly. I will say that empirical investigation has a better track record than purely deductive methods. But as Bertrand Russell once observed, it’s not entirely clear why. [1]
[1] Cite: A History of Western Philosophy
I think he’s “right” but where has he been? This has been the core ideology of the conservative base for decades. When it comes to economic issues conservatism has hardly been different from Libertarianism.
That is a hilarious sentence.
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t the way that many people who nominally believe in libertarianism think.
Well, it’s still hilarious. It’s just simultaneously mildly horrifying.
I think the Republican Party is facing a turning point. It can’t go on the way it is, and how this election plays out will frame its strategy for the next decade at least. It needs to fracture away from the libertarians and religious right, and then it would attract moderate conservatives and it would actually accomplish political goals that make sense.
The more likely post-lose strategy is that the party will just say “OMG! Mitt wasn’t conservative enough!” and jump headlong off the cliff that we thought they were already falling down from.