The unmourned end of libertarian politics
by Michael Lind,
Senior fellow
New America Foundation
The most epochal event in world politics since the cold war has occurred – and few people have noticed. I am not referring to the conflict in Iraq or Lebanon or the campaign against terrorism.
It is the utter and final defeat of the movement that has shaped the politics of the US and other western democracies for several decades: the libertarian counter-revolution.
Between the 1930s and 1960s, the US and other liberal democracies adopted their own versions of modern welfare state capitalism. By the mid-20th century, in every western democracy, the legitimacy of the welfare state was accepted by mainstream parties of the right as well as the centre and left. But not by the libertarians. Unlike Eisenhower, Nixon and other “modern Republicans”, America’s libertarians did not seek a more fiscally responsible welfare state. They wanted to abolish the welfare state altogether and replace it with an “opportunity society” or “ownership society”. They were revolutionaries – or more precisely, counter-revolutionaries, seeking to restore an idealised Victorian world of laisser faire capitalism.
Read more@ The Financial Times.
12 comments:
CATO:
I find it amazing and amusing how you define evil, as it's invariably at odds with the majority.
I also find it amusing that you don't consider neo-cons "Right Wing". My God, what are the Bolsheviks?
Every day on the news I hear of some unscruopulous corporation, scammer, quack, or other charlatan conconcting some scheme to take advantage of the general public. I think the public rightfully expects protection from these evils.
I'm tired of hearing cries from your side that the Government is not "my daddy". I, and I believe most in this country expect government to actually do something, and one is to protect it's citizens from evils like those mentioned above and provide service to "promote the general welfare" (from the preample which I'm sure you are aware).
Unlike you, when I see people look to the "government" I see them looking to themselves to solve problems and promote general welfare. Those establishing a government to promote the common good are not looking to big daddy as you believe.
I'm certain that history will show that the government response to Katrina will have been one of the largest factors in the unraveling of this administration. In my mind, that only goes to prove that the vast majority in this country expect the government to promote the general welfare. This is not the "Welfare State" that you and your minions revile, but I'm sure you see it as that.
Cato:
What's the difference between laizze-faire, free market and perfect competition? Or are they the same...
``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.
``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''
``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''
``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.
``Both very busy, sir.''
``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''
``Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?''
``Nothing!'' Scrooge replied.
``You wish to be anonymous?''
``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''
``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''
``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''
``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.
``It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''
CATO:
No offense, but thank God most people don't think as you do.
Over the course of my life, I've found that those who choose ONE value at the expense of all others will never do well in life. In otherwords, balance and compromise are the ideals of the wise. Liberty
( or more accurately, your concept of it, which I consider flawed ) is your idol and your God. You worship it at the expense of all else.
Yes, Ben Franklin was right about a few things, like the following.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
and
"Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."
I'm assuming your quoting my namesake here. Perhaps I'm wrong? ( I've never read her books by the way, I could get past the author's bio.)
"You have no spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company."
In other words " you are a worn out cog in my machine and ready for the trash heap". A fine sentiment. Maybe it would fit on a series of Ayn Rand
Greeting cards.
Gosh, and I thought we were getting along spledidly?
CATO:
As stated earlier, your view of Evil seems to contradict that of most.
That's a unique interpretation of the Faustian myth. So Satan, is taking your goods to spread evil among others. Unique indeed.
My main point was not Katrina, it was promoting the common welfare.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What semi-colon?
Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/
http://tinyurl.com/mw8s9
"nothing could be more natural" than to have a general clause with following constricting clauses that define the general."
I see not how this is pertinent.
I also find it interesting that "Liberty" is further down the list than "promote the general Welfare".
CATO: If you want to argue the Constitution, I suggest you find a more worthy foe. This is not my area of interest or expertice.
On a different note. ( and problably less pertinent).
What do you think of the definition of a planet changing this week?
I mean last week a planet was one thing, today, it's something else.
Funny of that isn't something that is static and frozen for all eternity. In other words, the experts have come to a concesus about the definition. There is no
cosmic "planetness". The current definition is a concensus of experts
that meets our current state of scientific knowledge.
Did you notice how collective that statement is: "We" and "our." There is no "I," "my," or "me."
I bet Cato's getting the piss shivers...
Cato:
You are starting to tap dance on the issue. Would you like to borrow my top hat and cane?
That comrade, is the $64,000 question.
CATO:
From the link I provided.
"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. "
I don't think that these issues the Constitution address change by whim.
Are we not following the Constitutional process to appoint a Supreme Court to do the interpreting? And are they not, at least in theory far more competitent to interpret than you , or certainly
I am.
You provide examples of words changing in a manor that are inconceivable, that is polar opposites. (That could only happen if you're an objectivist. You can ignore this dig if you wish)
You said:
I" often ask, "if society can evolve into something better, can it not devlove into something worse?" No one wants to admit it but it can."
I will, I agree it can devolve. But hopefully through reinterpretation the society's heading will go back to it's proper direction once it has seen the fruits of an incorrect interpretation.
At any rate, I think you are referring to a "maturing" society that inevitably gets better. You are
right, it can just as easily get worse.
I think where we disagree is the original meaning of words being cast in stone forever. Transporation (or at least how things are transported )certainly meant something different
in 1776 than today. Today's society inevitable poses issues that could not be conceived of in 1776.
I think trying to get emulate the minds of the founding fathers can be something akin to mind reading. You may have an inkling from there other writings but I don't think you can be sure of exactly what they thought. Plus could they not change their minds?
As I said,
You picked the wrong guy to argue these issues with.
Hasn't the Supreme Court Ruled laws as
unconstitutional?
If they have, then we are working from your interpretation of the Contitution and not those in power when you say there is no such provision.
I agree with Lind that there are no small government solutions. We need a balance between free markets and state invervention. A mixed economy gave our country the greatest period of prosperity. Libertarianism is dead and John Maynard Keynes lives !
Post a Comment