The Libertarian Fantasy

[Chip Z'Hoy]

Phosphorus and Freedom
The Libertarian Fantasy
By PAUL KRUGMAN AUG. 10, 2014

In the latest Times Magazine, Robert Draper profiled youngish libertarians — roughly speaking, people who combine free-market economics with permissive social views — and asked whether we might be heading for a “libertarian moment.” Well, probably not. Polling suggests that young Americans tend, if anything, to be more supportive of the case for a bigger government than their elders. But I’d like to ask a different question: Is libertarian economics at all realistic?

The answer is no. And the reason can be summed up in one word: phosphorus.

As you’ve probably heard, the City of Toledo recently warned its residents not to drink the water. Why? Contamination from toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie, largely caused by the runoff of phosphorus from farms.

When I read about that, it rang a bell. Last week many Republican heavy hitters spoke at a conference sponsored by the blog Red State — and I remembered an antigovernment rant a few years back from Erick Erickson, the blog’s founder. Mr. Erickson suggested that oppressive government regulation had reached the point where citizens might want to “march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp.” And the source of his rage? A ban on phosphates in dishwasher detergent. After all, why would government officials want to do such a thing?

An aside: The states bordering Lake Erie banned or sharply limited phosphates in detergent long ago, temporarily bringing the lake back from the brink. But farming has so far evaded effective controls, so the lake is dying again, and it will take more government intervention to save it.

The point is that before you rage against unwarranted government interference in your life, you might want to ask why the government is interfering. Often — not always, of course, but far more often than the free-market faithful would have you believe — there is, in fact, a good reason for the government to get involved. Pollution controls are the simplest example, but not unique.

Smart libertarians have always realized that there are problems free markets alone can’t solve — but their alternatives to government tend to be implausible. For example, Milton Friedman famously called for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. But in that case, how would consumers know whether their food and drugs were safe? His answer was to rely on tort law. Corporations, he claimed, would have the incentive not to poison people because of the threat of lawsuits.

So, do you believe that would be enough? Really? And, of course, people who denounce big government also tend to call for tort reform and attack trial lawyers.

More commonly, self-proclaimed libertarians deal with the problem of market failure both by pretending that it doesn’t happen and by imagining government as much worse than it really is. We’re living in an Ayn Rand novel, they insist. (No, we aren’t.) We have more than a hundred different welfare programs, they tell us, which are wasting vast sums on bureaucracy rather than helping the poor. (No, we don’t, and no, they aren’t.)

I’m often struck, incidentally, by the way antigovernment clichés can trump everyday experience. Talk about the role of government, and you invariably have people saying things along the lines of, “Do you want everything run like the D.M.V.?” Experience varies — but my encounters with New Jersey’s Motor Vehicle Commission have generally been fairly good (better than dealing with insurance or cable companies), and I’m sure many libertarians would, if they were honest, admit that their own D.M.V. dealings weren’t too bad. But they go for the legend, not the fact.

Libertarians also tend to engage in projection. They don’t want to believe that there are problems whose solution requires government action, so they tend to assume that others similarly engage in motivated reasoning to serve their political agenda — that anyone who worries about, say, environmental issues is engaged in scare tactics to further a big-government agenda. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, doesn’t just think we’re living out the plot of “Atlas Shrugged”; he asserts that all the fuss over climate change is just “an excuse to grow government.”

As I said at the beginning, you shouldn’t believe talk of a rising libertarian tide; despite America’s growing social liberalism, real power on the right still rests with the traditional alliance between plutocrats and preachers. But libertarian visions of an unregulated economy do play a significant role in political debate, so it’s important to understand that these visions are mirages. Of course some government interventions are unnecessary and unwise. But the idea that we have a vastly bigger and more intrusive government than we need is a foolish fantasy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/opini ... ntasy.html

[killeverything]

Awesome.

[tin00can]

Just an aside, my experience with the DMV is always good because I make an appointment for everything or do it online. Waiting in line is for suckers and libertarians - gives them something to complain about.

[killeverything]

Just an aside, my experience with the DMV is always good because I make an appointment for everything or do it online. Waiting in line is for suckers and libertarians - gives them something to complain about.

I was unaware you could make appointments for the DMV. It was always take a number and wwwwwwaaaaaaiiiiiittttttt to deal with someone who hates their life almost as much as they hate you.

The majority of my DMV experiences were miserable, but I still think libertarians suck.

[TravisBicklesMohawk]

As a former Libertarian myself, I concur with what you just posted.

Lunacy and politics do not mix, and the more I submerged myself into the party and its beliefs, I was mortified. Bob Barr was their choice for President in 2008. If that doesn't prove my point, nothing does.

[The_Blue®™]

Erick Ericson and Paul Ryan are libertarians?



This is a typical Krugman non-academic political blog post: silly, glib, and deliberately misunderstanding his opponents. But what the article purposely avoids reveals why Krugman really doesn't like libertarians. The fruits of the so-called "libertarian surge" hasn't been economic policy or the silly things Krugman mentions about the DMV representing the inefficiency of big government; it's foreign policy and civil liberties. It is libertarian and paleoconservative commentary that has been against the warmonger and national security state from jump street, and has continued to be against it even when a Democrat is elected President. It is their influence which stopped President Obama from starting another unconstitutional intervention in Syria and has reflected public opinion on the evil of NSA and CIA abuses. Rand Paul's excellent cross-examination of John Kerry's hypocrisy regarding his protest of Vietnam vis-a-vis his cheer-leading of wars in the Middle East is indicative of this.

Krugman and his ilk like Berkley economics professor Brad Delong, Robert Reich, Kerry and Samantha Power are typical Clintonite neo-liberals who support so-called "humanitarian intervention". Krugman and Delong supported Obama's unconstitutional war with Libya, support the national security state and are skeptical of Edward Snowden, and call respected libertarian academics like UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett "insane" because they stand up for first and second amendment protections. And then of course, there's Israel. Krugman is a quiet but strong supporter current Israeli policy and the status quo of American involvement.

Krugman likes to bash neocons, but he hates libertarians as much as they do. In his mind he thinks it's for a different reason but it's really a distinction without a difference. Krugman is terrified of a libertarian surge because it threatens the war powers of the executive, the national security state, and Israel. It doesn't have shit to do with banning 44oz sodas in Manhattan or tax rates.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

The libertarian movement is primarily about taking power away from voters. Get rid of govt's power and voters have no power. Not really surprising that libertarian ideology surged after we got a black president. People who benefit from libertarian financial policies use the peace and love stuff to attract support. Notice they don't seem to care a whole lot about govt exceeding its power when it comes to minorities or women. In fact, people like Ron Paul and other paleo conservatives want govt to push harder on those groups.

Now the libertarian surge is fading. The Daily Paul is shutting down. Peter Schiff is canceling his radio show. This is just the beginning.

'Daily Paul' Appears to be Preparing to Shutdown at the End of the Year
First Peter Schiff cancels his daily radio show, now this. Is there stagnation in parts of the libertarian movement?
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/20 ... ng-to.html

[TravisBicklesMohawk]

^^^^ Exactly. Shame because they had such promise for those of us who actually believe in minimal government intrusion instead of bitching about some struggling mom trying to get more weekly food stamp money so she can feed her kids.

They've clearly forgotten who the real enemy is.

[Blizzard of Cos]

^^^^ Exactly. Shame because they had such promise for those of us who actually believe in minimal government intrusion instead of bitching about some struggling mom trying to get more weekly food stamp money so she can feed her kids.

They've clearly forgotten who the real enemy is.

lol