Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

This thread has indeed veered off topic, as was perhaps predictable. It needs to veer back again, and away from ritual curses.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Valmont wrote: »

... Note however, that libertarianism is not exactly an economic or social theory; it is a philosophy of law that sets out to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. Everything else is a result of this freedom and liberty....

I like "the rights and freedoms". So simple. We are all agreed on what individual rights and freedoms are, aren't we?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

As was correctly pointed out, most of the libertarians don't exactly get what they've signed up for.

How so? I don't there are any illusions as to what libertarianism is, so I don't see how someone could support it without knowing what they were supporting.

On that point, do you then feel that the rise in libertarianism can somehow be attributed to ignorance of same?

Sandvich wrote: »

Libertarianism is so incredibly idealistic. Far too much of it expects things to happen as soon as you get rid of big government.

Well here's the question: do libertarians believe in a "year 0" type reset, with a dramatic, complete and instant change of the governmental system, or the gradual working towards a libertarian state over the period of say 50 years? I would think the latter.

The Internet is responsible for a large part of the rise in popularity of libertariansm. There are two reasons for this:

1. The Internet popularised libertarian ideas which would otherwise have received little coverage.

2. The core Internet using demographic is particularly receptive to libertarian ideology.

The explanation above relates the rise in libertarianism with an unhappiness about THE government but how this generalises to government as a whole is poorly explained. No one is happy with waste or ineptitude in government, it's why we can vote for an alternative. And if alternatives are so poor then you can run yourself. Yes governments are bad at managing x y z but so are individuals. I've yet to find a libertarian who can explain how they'd avoid a tragedy of the commons? Or how they ensure the poor and disabled were protected - charity is simply not enough and social insurance is fine if you can afford. Libertarianism is the preserve of the better off, it is fine for those who are happy withtheir hand. Those who aren't happy usually prefer socialism. Both extreme ideologies have vested interests. I think there is a rise now because more people are looking inward and asking why am I paying this much when person B is only paying this. It reflects a rise in selfishness. People are thinking if they are left to operate under their own steam that they will thrive.

Of course these people (at least the ones I've debated) already have a good means of production - either education or wealth or both. When they attribute blame for the financial crisi they speak of government failure, ignoring the major role private companies played and ironically lecturing on personal responsility in the next breath. The rise in libertarianism comes from the rise in over educated self obsessed individuals who underestimate individual differences, thinking 'if I can do it, anyone can'. They see inequality and accept it.

I'm born Ro uneducated parents who do not make sure I go to school. What chance have I under a libertarian system? Who provides the schools? I've a drug addiction? Who pays for rehabilitation in a libertarian system? I'm disabled and I've never been able to afford social insurance. Who will ensure I don't die in the gutter? If charity is your answer to all this then you are really showing up your delusion.

I think their response to the Global Financial Crisis shows the unseriousness of most Libertarians, or at least those who identify themselves as such.

The origin of the crisis is readily knowable. There was a basic flaw in the American Capitalist system, a flaw that was allowed to grow unchecked because of a lack of government regulation and the degradation and running down of existing regulation. This was predicated by the nonsense belief in the "hidden hand" of the market.

The flaw was that people creating mortgages were able to sell them off to Wall Street Banks. Because the people originally brokering the loan were simply making money from selling it on they didn't do due diligence on whether the mortgagee could afford the loan. Worse then that, they started creating loans and mortgage products specifically designed to sell to people they knew couldn't afford them. The more of these bad loans they made and sold on, the more money they made. These people were merely acting in their selfish self interest – not an immoral thing by itself, but very bad for the wider financial system. Strict regulation on mortgage lending practices and on-selling would have ensured that the self interest of these people was instead tied up with making good loans that were a strong chance of being honoured. A bit like the way it's in someone's financial self interest to rob a bank, but that self interest is altered by the law against robbing banks and the significant penalties that exist against that particular action.

What turned a mere housing bubble into the Global Financial Meltdown was the actions of the big banks who took these loans, securitised them and sold them off in bundles. These securities were incorrectly appraised by Credit Rating Agencies as Triple A or B when in reality they were rubbish. Again no due diligence was done. Credit Ratings Agencies are paid by the issuers of bonds to rate those bonds, therefore a conflict of interest exists. Actually it was no conflict at all, CRA's simply rated bonds as their major customers Bears Sterns, Goldman ect wanted. An epic failure of industry "self regulation." Overtime Wall Street developed new financial instruments and markets based on these rubbish mortgage backed securities. These markets, being new, were virtually outside the bounds of any regulation. They grew to an outrageous size. It is estimated that about 70 trillion dollars worldwide were tied up in these bogus markets. Eventually mortgagees started defaulting, the property bubble burst and these markets collapsed along with the banks and unwitting investors supporting them.

At every step this catastrophic collapse could have been stopped or mitigated by strong government regulation. At every step it was enabled by self interest left unchecked. Yet what is the Libertarians response? And for that matter what is the response of much of the Right? The same old anti-government rhetoric, blame the Unions, blame the home buyers, blame the Greeks, blame the left – blame everyone and everything but their own discredited beliefs about the nature of self interest, "self-regulation", and the negligible role government should play in a modern Capitalist economy.

Their unserious nature is also demonstrated by the fact that they are able to identify for blame a very minor player in the meltdown – Frannie and Freddie – but this where all their analysis stops. To go any further would be unrewarding from their point of view, so they don't. They just stick to the tired government bad, regulation bad dogma that underpins all their arguments. They simply ignore all the evidence that contradicts their outlook, and thus don't allow reality to shape their world view. Much like the Utopian Socialists of old.

I think it's partly down to the left swinging over the past hundred plus years from movements that challenged the state to movements that largely work with the state. Human rights, trade unions, civil rights, environmental movements, all spring from the left, and almost all of them see the solution within the state, rather then without. If you're dissatisfied with the modern state, where can you find a credible alternative in left that doesn't appeal to the state? Even the large majority of the egalitarian movement sees solutions within the state.

That's a generalizations, and the crisis in Greece at the moment, and the response, is probably a good critique of that, but in general I'm just thinking that if someone is frustrated and maybe alienated from the state there doesn't seem to be a credible alternative within the umbrella of left movements that appeals to the kind of consumer culture and particular standard of living that we've come to expect. I think the libertarian movement, probably on the right, does provide a sort of alternative ideological framework to the state and a vision/dream of life that is appealing to the sort of life we expect and want. Whether it's credible or not is a whole different story.