Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

I think one of the reasons perhaps, is that a good proportion of those who call themselves libertarians, don't actually understand what true libertarianism actually consists of. One sees people describing themselves as libertarian, yet supporting a strong social safety net, government role in regulation etc. It seems to me that a lot of "libertarians" have vague notions of reducing state bureaucracy and waste, slimming down the civil service, and other such policies, and adopt the tag because it seems to match their political beliefs.

That's not to say of course, that there hasn't been an increase in true libertarians over the past fews years, and I'd ascribe that to two things. First of all, there's Ron Paul. He didn't exactly set the world alight in the presidential elections, but he and his political tenets certainly gained a lot of publicity. Considering that he's one of the most respected politicians in America, with a reputation for intregrity and acting on his beliefs, he probably has played a small role in the rise his ideology.

The critical factor in libertarianism's new found appeal though, has been the abysmal failure of governments worldwide to anticipate and avoid the recent crash. People were told for years that the state ensured there were checks and balances within the system, only to find that they it was all built like a house of cards. When faith in government is shaken as badly as it has been recently, it's probably no surprise to see a creeping suspicion of state authority in general. If that weren't enough, people now see their leaders pumping billions into financial systems which crashed on their watch, a policy which, rightly or wrongly, is deeply unpopular in most countries. So governments are blamed for bringing about the crisis, for prolonging it, and for mishandling the response. In this kind of situation, it's not all that surprising to see a surge in the popularity of an ideology which seeks to limit the scale and scope of the state.

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

The libertarian movenment is based on truth, and logic and personal freedom, most current governments work in exactly the opposite fashion. I think the current financial crisis might have exposed where governments real attentions lie because it isnt with the people. The libs certainly put forth a interesting alternative.

The problem with that is that libertarians would have advocated for less regulation of the financial systems than was actually in place. So, if anything, the crash of recent years would have been far greater if true libertarian ideals had prevailed over the past decade or so. Interestingly, I've heard Alan Greenspan being described as a closet libertarian, which probably goes some way to explaining his refusal to sanction more robust oversight of the markets.

northwest100 wrote: »

It's unpopular because it's people who work and save their money that will have to pay this off in the long term.

Why should we all be working everyday, paying taxes for these assholes to award themselves milion euro bonuses?

I don't know if a libertarian system would work, but the one we have at the moment seems to favour the lawless corrupt and incompetent scum of the earth.

It's definitely not capitalism anymore...there would be no bailout of the banks if it were.

LOL, now that's a whole different argument, and one that I'm too tired on a Sunday night to get into!:D

I will say though, that no one system is ever perfect so it's not necessarily such a bad idea for something not to be 100% capitalist. I'm no expert on the man or his work, but I understand that this was acknowledged even by Adam Smith himself.

amacachi wrote: »

Well the difference is that there is plenty of regulation, but it's the cheating of these regulations is what caused it. Less regulation over a longer time period would lead to an equilibrium being reached much more quickly. As well as this, the housing issue is a big one, and on the surface tax breaks may seem like a "lack" of government interference, but it isn't. By purposely making housing construction more attractive than other investments the governments are interfering in the overall market.

I agree with you that governments tend to skeew various markets for short term economic benefit. And it can't be denied that the regulations were rarely, if ever, enforced, and then only in half-hearted, half-arsed way. But I'd argue that the regulations should be reformed whereas a libertarian seek to abolish them entirely, and leave everything to the market.

The one strange thing I've noticed about most libertarians, is their almost blind faith in the power of the market. They seem to have convinced (deluded?) themselves that the market is some form of pure entity, unsullied by man, and thus able to react and make decisions logically and rationally. Yet the market is a machine designed by man, to be used by my man, and in which man is the single most important component. If ever there was a design more adulturated by man, it's the market, yet libertarians seem completely oblivious to this.

Godammit, I loathe Naom Chomsky. Although I'm not sure whether that's due to his politics or the fact that I took a course of linguistics in college, only to discover that a knowledge of English came a distant second as a requirement to a complete mastery of maths!! And if there's one thing I hate more than Naom Chomsky, it's maths!