The title is far more ambitious than anything I can deliver. But, I happened to pick up a book from 1997 I had laying around purporting to provide a “history of the Net.” There was a passage about Pauline Borsook’s 1996 essay (later a book) “Cyberselfish” that appeared in Mother Jones. That essay talked about the dominance (at the time, anyway) of libertarianism in cyberspace and the cyber-libertarian tendency to ignore the statist foundations of the environment in which they operated.
Although the technologists I encountered there were the liberals on social issues I would have expected (pro-choice, as far as abortion; pro-diversity, as far as domestic partner benefits; inclined to sanction the occasional use of recreational drugs), they were violently lacking in compassion, ravingly anti-government, and tremendously opposed to regulation.
These are the inheritors of the greatest government subsidy of technology and expansion in technical education the planet has ever seen; and, like the ungrateful adolescent offspring of immigrants who have made it in the new country, they take for granted the richness of the environment in which they have flourished, and resent the hell out of the constraints that bind them. And, like privileged, spoiled teenagers everywhere, they haven’t a clue what their existence would be like without the bounty showered on them. These high-tech libertarians believe the private sector can do everything — but, of course, R&D is something that cannot by any short-term measurement meet the test of the marketplace, the libertarians’ measure of all things. They decry regulation–except without it, there would be no mechanism to ensure profit from intellectual property, without which entrepreneurs would not get their payoffs, nor would there be equitable marketplaces in which to make their sales.
I hadn’t really thought about the Internet’s halcyon days of 1997 in quite some time. But, that was a period in which I really identified with Libertarianism. I’ve mentioned before that I come from loyal, country-club Republican stock. Early in the 90s, I met a libertarian proselytizer at Miami (OH) and thought he made a heck of a lot of sense. Seems like that led to a few years of Ayn Rand appreciation. That trajectory probably peaked in the late 90s when I was really getting online and very much identified with the cyber-libertarians; coupled with the Republicans really pissing me off with that trumped up impeachment abomination Gingrich & Co. ginned up.
So, in the late 90s, at least as I saw it, there was this explosion of creativity online. New people with new ideas were making money and creating things of value through their own effort (never mind ARPANET and other statist precursors to the Internet that made it all possible). In such an environment, I had little sympathy for those who couldn’t make money. “What’s the problem? Get a computer, get an idea, make money.” On non-economic matters, these folks were definitely of the “if it doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket, I don’t care” school of thought. Gay rights – fine; gun control – hands off; first amendment absolutists; religion – whatever floats your boat, just don’t stick it in the government; international affairs – peace is good for business, our business transcends borders; drugs – yes please!
Things have changed in the 00s. Or, perhaps my perspective has. Now would probably be a good time for a pithy quote about relativity, but I don’t know any. With the economic stagnation of the aughts, libertarianism now looks to me more like a creed of “I got mine Jack; fuck you.” I suppose that some of this has to do with the appearance, to me, that the people making money are, by and large, the people who already had money. The rich getting richer is obviously nothing new, but in the late 90s, it seemed much more likely for a person to get rich with little more than a good (or even bad) idea and some hard work. Now, making money seems to involve having a big pile of cash that you leverage into more money through various financial tricks without creating anything new or particularly valuable. Additionally, the Libertarians strike me as decidedly more conservative socially in the late 00s than I noticed in the late 90s. The focus I’ve seen in Libertarian circles has been largely silent on things like the War on (Some) Drugs and Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues. Instead, there has been more of a push to defund government through an all but singular focus on anti-tax issues with a side order of dismantling the social safety net and making checks on corporate power toothless.
As the saying goes, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” I freely admit that I have made no attempt to objectively study the progress of the Libertarians or libertarianism. A lot of this could have to do with my position in life in 2009 versus my position in life in 1999. But, to the extent I am correct, I sure would like the Libertarians of 2019 to look more like they did in the 90s.
As a person who *used* to identify myself as Libertarian, I ashamedly admit that you have indeed summed up the decade, perhaps the last 20 years.
From where I sit, I’ve seen the Libertarians hijacked by gun fetishists and the wealthy who focus on their right to “defend myself with lethal force” and “defend my hoard from the less fortunate” instead of the “live and let live” attitude that that once attracted those who value personal freedom and opportunity.
Meanwhile, the Republicans were hijacked by profligate spenders bent on consolidating power in the federal government. What’s a good conservative to do?
This former Libertarian finds most solace today in the Democrats, who are at least honest about their intent to restrain personal freedom and mess with the free market. I prefer honest and open dialogue over the bait and switch approach. Maybe the former Libertarians can hijack the Democrats and thus complete the cycle of confusion.
We seem to have to cover this ground from time to time, don’t we? A couple of things occur to me:
I will agree to a point that since the Libertarian Party spent eight years attacking Republican positions, both nationally and in Indiana, it sounded ‘more Republican than the Republicans’ on economic issues. If you are really paying attention to the libertarians right now, especially nationally, they are indeed speaking more about civil liberties, and war issues, attacking the Democratic positions on such things. Look at former Reason Hit & Run, former Hoosier Radley Balko’s site ‘The Agitator’, or, dare I say, my own blog… when I’m not ranting about the Colts not going for the brass ring. Cato has been all over civil liberties and war issues. &c.
There is correlation between economics and ending wars, though. The case for ending the Federal Reserve is of course economic, but one good reason for ending the Fed is to take away the ability to inflate the money supply so as to hide the true financial cost of wars. That’s been a libertarian talking point for 30 years. Only recently has this issue begun to get some traction.
The ‘ingrate’ comment is comedic relief. By this kind of thinking, because one is opposed to government interventions generally in the marketplace, and those government interventions generally do occur, certainly increasingly so, the libertarian is to either refuse to enjoy use of said service or to start praising? Certainly, keep paying for it. So, don’t use the internet, don’t go to a Colts game, don’t drive on the roads for heavens sake, but keep pouring in ‘your share’ and stfu. Lovely. There must be some Latin for this type of argument, but the English ‘asshole’ works mighty fine for me. I say this as gently and lovingly as words on the page will allow, plus emoticon. :-) Well, that’s coming from Mother Jones, so I wouldn’t expect anything but antagonism for anything short of altruism bordering on self-immolation.
As to the economic woes, it isn’t “I got mine, up yours”. It’s “These interventions are making things worse, stop it!” If you want to see the reality on display, go to a libertarian meeting or convention. You won’t find too many multi-millionaires there. You will find people of ordinary means, frequently small business owners, who do happen to believe that, rich or poor, if you earned it, you should keep most of it.
It’s not so much that libertarians should refuse to use things that came into being because of the government, it’s that they should acknowledge that the government can and does create useful things. This was especially so in the case of cyber-libertarians.
Some people confuse libertarian with anarchy. Libertarians believe in (very) limited, but strong, government.
Others confuse the presence of benefit with the existence of net benefits. Every govt policy has “benefits”; the question is NOT whether the govt creates useful (if not ethical) outcomes.
In my experience, people are libertarians or Libertarians for a variety of reasons– from a focus on a single issue and a general disposition toward freedom to a well-thought-out philosophy. I suspect that the proportion of “single-issue” voters is (far?) less among Libs. Motives vary as well– from selfish to selfless. Again, I doubt that Libs have more (politically) selfish people than other parties.
I will say that this is the time of the year when my small business owner hat is most firmly on my head. We take our year end profits, and the various federal taxes are always a matter of consternation when they’re all piled up like that instead of spread out over weekly installments.
The benefits of govt policy are generally easier-to-see, by nature. It’s a grand idea to do what we can to make the costs as easy-to-see (transparent) as possible. If people want a lot of govt, ok– but it should be with eyes wide open.
It seems to me libertarians warn against what we shouldn’t do,but there is no road to solutions,such as the current 10.2 unemployment. ‘Just wait it out’ is the most common solution I have heard from economists I think are libertarians.
Anecdotes are not data,but I can recall listening to NPR time after time with Bush spokespeople explaining with official data how the economy was very good and how well the Iraq war was going.Look at Iraq and our economy now..War time anecdotes showed a different story,but ‘facts don’t lie’ and anecdotes do.So here we are.
Do people like Sen McConnel and Rep John Boehner present a accurate picture of how libertarians would handle war and economy and health care? Im never sure who is a libertarian and who isn’t.Everyone except liberals get to define themselves…
The govt has tried “doing something (big)” for just short of 24 months now; how’s that working for you? For all but political hacks, statists, and those who aren’t paying much attention, it has become next-to-impossible to believe that more govt has been helpful or would help from here.
All of the economic and especially political uncertainty makes it more difficult to make a range of business decisions. To name the most prominent example, will we have health care “reform” or not– and if so, how will it be paid for. If through an extension of the brutal and regressive payroll tax, a tax on labor will make labor even less attractive. If through an employer mandate…If a lightly or heavily subsidized “public option”… All things equal, businesses will look to postpone hiring and pay decisions until this is settled.
McConnell and Boehner as libs? Uhh, no…not even close– on fiscal policy, war, etc. Are they even conservative in any meaningful sense of the word?
The government has done more than just try to do something big. The government has pulled our country back from catastrophe and we’re on our way back up.
More government action is exactly what is needed and if it weren’t for the party of “no”, we’d get back on our feet much faster.
The healthcare system will eventually be reformed because it’s the right thing to do.
Hey Charlie, good to hear from you again. You didn’t answer my last post; I thought we’d lost ya!
Bush pulled us back from catastrophe? I’m surprised to hear that from you! Maybe, but doubtful. We’ll never know, but a good case can be made that the “cure” (in practice) was worse than the problem. Since the financial bail-out, it’s been a lot of gobbledygook– and things have clearly gotten worse, for those with eyes to see.
In any case, 24 months of “stimulus” is probably the worst macro policy we’ve seen since Hoover & FDR’s work in the Great Depression (or perhaps the Johnson/Nixon/Carter years).
I think that things have clearly gotten better. How a person sees the economy depends a lot on a persons attitude and the type of glasses used.
Unemployment down and stock market up makes it clear to me that the stimulus was the best thing that could be done to plug the drain. So the leaking has stopped and the economy is beginning to fill which will take some time, so we have to be patient.
The government is beginning to enforce our trade laws which will help as will fixing this terrible healthcare situation and passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.
There’s an interesting analysis in todays NYTs,front page,about how the government plan to bail out mortgagees in jeopardy of foreclosue has failed .
The two main points: Mortgagees are refinancing,although at a slower rate that would be adequate, with lower monthly premiums,but in the long run it is predicted they will not be able to stay in the house because its beyond their means to maintain,even in better times. They should be encouraged rather to trade down to a lower priced house .
Banks are refusing to refinance properties at new lower current market value,,because they don’t want to throw away what they consider their asset,so both home owners ,themsleves, and banks are guilty of not wanting to get the homeowner to move on.The government can not ‘make’ anyone do anything,it seems.
My insight in reading this article is that ‘a government plan’ is a compromise based on differing ideologies and doesn’t address the problem that most don’t really understand in the first place except politically…The bailouts and stimulus were all compromised so they could pass,not so they would be effective. ‘This is how government can be bad even with the best intentions.
That’s why I was honestly asking above what libertarians would do with rampant foreclosures and 10.2 unemployment.Perhaps someone will address that.I can’t be the only one interested.If the answer is ‘nothing’,then government still wins for trying.
An ancillary question might be the libertarian approach to bankruptcy. It’s government intervention that obliterates a property right, so I suspect they are opposed. But I think the bankruptcy laws are an absolutely critical safety valve for our economy. At a certain point, an individual can get so loaded down with debt that he or she is essentially economic dead weight.
Enough of that dead weight drags down the economy in excess of the negative effect of abrogating property rights.
Charlie said, “I think that things have clearly gotten better. How a person sees the economy depends a lot on a person’s attitude and the type of glasses used.”
Exactly; that’s what I said earlier/above (January 1st; 15:49), in referring to the lenses through which one might interpret recent macroeconomic history and the fiscal policy efforts by Bush and now Obama.
Lou said, “That’s why I was asking…what…libertarians would do with rampant foreclosures and 10.2% unemployment….If the answer is ‘nothing’, then government still wins for trying.”
Libs believe that ethically and practically, doing much less before the problems ensued– and since then– would have been (and would be) better. Get rid of “mark-to-market” accounting rules; quit increasing uncertainty in investment and hiring decisions (e.g., through health care “reform” and the E”FC”A); don’t tax the hiring of workers (e.g., through payroll taxes and mandated benefits); desist in “stimulus” efforts (which have not worked for 24 months, will not work in the future, and continue to give us more debt and its subsequent troubles).
I’m not sure what you mean by “the govt still wins by trying”. If you mean politically, then perhaps so– as long as the costs stay relatively subtle (vs., for example, defaulting on the debt, big inflation) and if a lot of people are fooled by the *correlation* between govt activity and the eventual recovery of the economy. (That seems to be the strategy; keep doing something so you can take credit for what will happen anyway.)
If you mean, economically– not at all. There’s no extra credit in this category for “trying” and good intentions.
Doug asks an interesting question about bankruptcy. There are deadweight losses either way. Once society has decided to allow bankruptcy– a form of “welfare” and income redistribution– I suppose there are various ways to make that more/less ethical and efficient.
Eric Schanberg wrote:
…. Get rid of “mark-to-market” accounting rules; quit increasing uncertainty in investment and hiring decisions (e.g., through health care “reform” and the E”FC”A); don’t tax the hiring of workers (e.g., through payroll taxes and mandated benefits); desist in “stimulus” efforts (which have not worked for 24 months, will not work in the future, and continue to give us more debt and its subsequent troubles)….
It’s counter intuitive to equate no regulation with better business.Although I don’t understand economics and management at your level I can see that what you propose is targeted to aid just one side. Regulation / no regulation is the same concept. ..No regulation for one side means de facto regulation for the other.(I hope Im not making up law,but its seems an established pattern all around us)
The lack of appropriate regulation by the people(government) is why I blame government for allowing this economic mess to happen. Lack of rules gives license to those who have wealth and power and suddenly they are making ad hoc rules to control access to those who would compete.So there is no such thing as ‘no rules’.This phenomenum is seen in the news every day.
Don’t make regulation until you know who will be harmed and who will be helped:All rules have a benefit and a downside.And the worst rules are ad hoc rules that arent written down.”Ad hoc control’ is like Louis XVI keeping his rivals dependant on his auspices so they couldnt do him harm. Thats kind of what ‘free market’ has gotten to.
“I’m not sure what you mean by “the govt still wins by trying”.
I mean that ‘government’ is the voice of the people so they must ‘try’ .Government is our constitutional voice for redress. Our government was lax and allowed 20-yr olds to flip houses so they could dream of retiring at 30. Thats like skimming money off the top without producing any value,and they took everyone’s money as their own.That’s not to say government wasn’t deeply involved in a more insidious way. ;billions of dollars were funneled to the private sector with no strings attached and it all just disappeared.We will never get our country back fully; its been sold to China and other low wage countries.But we surely have learned a lesson,havent we?
And what is the alternative to stimilus ,short of just waiting it out?And sure it was filled with pork and pet projects,but each project should be evaluated by some yet undetermined outside authority.Future legislation may be in order.
I feel like I sense the teabaggers on TV feel,but I think they’re confused on whom to blame..
Who said no regulation? In fact, the only regulation I mentioned dropping was “mark-to-market”. And while there’s some downside/debate from moving away from a highly conservative approach to valuing assets, the trade-offs seem (quite) worthwhile. The other proposals all increase the cost and riskiness of doing business– not the height of wisdom ever, but especially if we’re “trying” to get out of a recession.
Yes, just wait it out. Do you really believe that the recession without “stimulus” would have lasted more than 24 months (and counting)? Why?
We haven’t seen the inflation yet. There are consequences to printing that much money out of thin air. Recovery? One month where unemployment numbers have improved marginally and haven’t been revised yet? Governments are very slow to announce recessions, and very quick to announce recoveries. I’m going to stand back and look for more confirmation before judging this recession ‘over’.
The one prime reason this Libertarian backs a more hands-off approach is that the right lessons can be learned then. Consider the banks and the horrible lending schemes. What will teach lenders not to make such risky loans more swiftly, allowing those lenders to feel the pain of their bad decisions, or, bailing them out? I don’t think the banks learned anything. More regulation? Well, that’s a nice band-aid that requires the vigilance of the regulators (and if TSA is any guide, heaven help us) that fails to strike at the root of the problem.
I’m concerned about the plausible deniability the bailout has provided for the decision makers and policies that got us into the problem. I suppose the finger pointing would have been fierce either way, but if the economy had cratered, the banksters at least wouldn’t have been able to plausibly deny they couldn’t stand on their own.
After taking TARP money and having others take it as well, thereby (at present anyway) weathering the storm, Goldman Sachs and the like can now assert that they never wanted to take the money, never needed it, and ought to be permitted to go back to being Masters of the Universe, thank you very much.
However we define ‘ideology’ it seems to be what keeps us from learning a lesson from failed policies.
Lou, in this case I totally disagree. The bailouts are the pinnacle of ‘practical politics’. There was Bush, in defiance of the screaming fiscal conservatives, bailing out the banks. Then, there was Obama in defiance of the anti-corporate-welfare crowd with automaker bailouts.
I think some ideology would have been a good idea, because the practical, the saving of decision makers spun as too big to fail, is the purest of anti-ideological ‘practical’ policy.
Doug- There can be little doubt that the banks were happy to get the bailout money until they saw the strings that would be attached. Only at that point did they ‘not need the money’. Very convenient.
Mike Kole,
Yes, I understand your points. I always take what you post seriously although I may not understand what you mean or I may not agree.
I still cannot see how libertarian thinking can address problems because it seems to me an ideology that separates power and isolates people. So I always feel I’m missing something basic.Isolated people are easy targets;that’s the basic rationale for labor unions and other centers of organized power.
What I had in mind was the that idealogues tend to scapegoat others as the reason for failed solutions rather than see flaws in their own ideology.At least we have to agree that the problem still needs to be defined and solved.Discounting a solution only because its ‘big government socialism’ is ideology at its most destructive.Address the Damn problem! And how people are affected individually has to be basic to any solution.
Rhetorical question as an example:How do libertarians take patients out of ER and give them the freedom health care affords them?
Politics have become so depressing to even follow any more because people are attacked just for what they’re proposing..Ive been pushed more and more liberal over the years,and others have been pushed more conservative, all based on what we perceive in modern politics. My politics are ‘liberal’ by default in the pedestrian sense because I want the individual freed from those who havebeen stealing his ‘freedoms’,and lately I see the danger coming from the right in this country.
In college the first politican I worked for was Barry Goldwater,for the same reason I say I’m liberal now. But I know at 68 I perceive reality differently than I did when I was 21.Conservatism is all corporate now,and there is no power group more anti-individual than coporations. Even the tea baggers seem like corporate types in disguise.
So many people are afraid,bordering on paranoia,and that is being exploited by rw monied power bases.And just the fact that Obama is black and in power makes him appear foreign and scary to so many ..I see that with my own family in Illinois. It’s like the peasants will soon be taking over like the Bolsheviks did in Russia( was that on Fox news?)
I see the biggest flaw in free market ideology9it blinds people as to cause and effect)as counter to the good life which union wage brought my parents’ generation. Now the good live has to come through investment not salary,but how can anyone have money to invest? Free market is manipulated somewhere in the Oz-land,behind a curtain.
Now business cant pay health care and can’t even pay a decent wage to millions of people because it undercuts the profit margin,so the concept of free market undermines itself.Yet millions are going to cadre types and the bonuses paid are legendary.We’re afraid of immigrants for the wrong reasons,and terrorism threat is a means of national control.
I dont think the bailouts were practical at all.. They were compromised for politcial reasons not for economic ones. I think you actually said the same thing. Bush and Obama both being defiant against their natural base couldnt go far enough to overcome so many not understanding what was going on,or not wanting to work togEther in any kind of consensus. Many were already angry with Bush,and then here comes Obama.
My ideology would be ‘do what works for the individual’,but for that to happen we have to understand the problem and then pre-accept the solution as palatable, and that means probably go against our own ideology on some isues,but true ideologues are always afraid of the crash atthe bottom of the slippery slope..But what happens is compromise goes only as far as it is forced on politicans so they dont look bad personally, and then we go into months and months of “I told you so’ and’wait for the next election’ with some gleefully fiddling while Rome burns.
The now daily polling solidifies partisanship into the daily repub vs dem ‘fair and balanced debate’ and everyone just waits to hear what they agree .
Yes, I agree that ‘some ideology ‘ is good or even necessary.We need to stay on paved roads mostly so people can follow.That’s not an issue.
Ideology is a negative for any of us if we don’t see it as a a means to a solution. . Thats why I’m more of an anecdotal thinker than a purist. An anecdote tells us that at least once something was valid/invalid in real life. But teaching lends itself to ancedotal thinking and that’s what I did for 35 years.
Hope I addressed the issues you brought up…
Libertarianism has an inherent bias toward individualism. This can manifest itself in isolation, but certainly does not need to. Libs promote voluntary associations which can range from churches to civic groups to labor unions. Lib policy prescriptions– to a point you made above– tend to be more negative (what govt should not do), rather than positive (what govt should do). So it offers little precision on what that society or its individuals should do.
It’s important to note that statism can easily lead to individualism as well– the direct or indirect result of more government policy. The State does not want rivals and so may work against voluntary associations (e.g., the Church in Communist and Muslim countries). The State, in its quest for some well-intentioned solutions may indirectly undermine private associations (e.g., welfare, Social Security, education).
Interestingly, democracy is supposedly based on the power of the individual, but easily devolves into majority/gang rule (especially without check/balances). And in practice, interest groups have much more pull, resulting in a lot of “us vs. them” results. (See: politically-connected corporations, labor unions, etc.) Members of the general public typically isolate themselves because the costs of taking knowledgeable action in politics is simply too high. They’re too busy mowing their lawns and raising their kids.
Ideology requires at least some thought and some principle. Most of our politicians seem to have little of either. Then again, that’s how the Oz-like incentives work in the political arena.
Not sure I agree with the supposition that democracy is based on the power of the individual. I always thought it was the ascendancy of the masses over the individual, usually a king or tyrant. (Rule of the People) But I don’t disagree that it lends itself to mob rule. That’s why you need the Bill of Rights and the other limitations in the Constitution.
Right, I could have been clearer on that. I don’t think that’s the way it is– or is supposed to be, officially– but that’s often a way it’s sold/perceived.
One way to look at it is that when the French monarchy fell through mob action ,democracy became an ‘ideology’ taken over by the most extreme element,who saw it as their own personal government to be enforced at any cost, and in turn were destroyed by it. Mlle. Liberty changed from a bare-breasted maiden leading the troops into battle into Madame La Farge,the matron who busily knitted away as heads fell into the baskets with cheers from the crowd.
Democracy is a process with written rules..
Sometimes the process of democracy, complete with written rules, is Jim Crow. It astonishes me how masses of people will use the democratic process to isolate and oppress minority groups. But then, all it takes is a vote and/or a judiciary willing to make it so. As Ben Franklin said, paraphrasing, “Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner”. Anymore, our government looks like exactly that. See: health care. The many not-rich empower their elected officials to take from the rich.
The smallest minority remains the individual. This is why I think that is where protection should lie. I don’t care to play the game of shading by degrees. If a government can sell out one, it’s only a matter of time before all are. Usually, said selling out will happen for very good reasons. See: health care. Just trying to make sure the poorest among us have coverage.