"Libertarianism" is not a real economic or political philosophy, it is nothing more than a religious (or faith-based, if you must) belief system, based on neither supernatural revelation, nor scientific evidence. Its real supporters are the rich, for whom the believers are free advertising and marketing agents.
If you don't know what an argument is, read the Argument FAQ. This is *not* "spouting opinions, it is an argument, in the Monty Python Dictionary Definition of the word, so read on...and if you can't counter any of my arguments with *EVIDENCE*, and you are not convinced by them, then you are basing your opinion on faith, not reason (nor "enlightened self-interest").
First, one of the main tenets of libertarianism is the belief in a concept they refer to as "enlightened self-interest". I assert that such a thing is not a major motivation of peoples' actions in the real world, and easily overwhelmed by other factors.
Example one: in both the US South, prior to the Civil Rights Movement, and South Africa, prior to the Black majority government, it would have been in many folks' economic self-interest to serve Blacks in their businesses, since there were so many of them. Instead, they were kept out of many establishments...lowering the revenues of those same businesses.
Example two: it is a self-evident *fact* that something like one person in 10,000, or one in 100,000, will win *anything* in a lottery... and yet millions of people spend hundreds of millions of dollars on them, every year, apparently soley on the miniscule hope of getting rich, quick.
Example three: many self-proclaimed libertarians, esp. those who rent, and have children, still vote against the Democrats, even though the Democrats regularly put money into public schools, which would save many more thousands of dollars for the libertarians, given the cost of private schools, over what they pay in taxes.
The evidence above refutes any claim that "enlightened self-interest" is a major motivation in human behavior.
Secondly, the claim at the core of libertarianism is that "the free
market will solve all economic woes" is clearly based soley on faith,
and not on evidence.
- they have no clear examples of a truly "free" market
- they have no means of getting from the current economy
to their "wonderful future": when I asked one, once, if
we were to stop, take everything away from everyone, and
divvy it up, like the beginning of Monopoly (tm), or
whether we simply were to start from where we are, with
him and me with diddly, and the Rockefellers, and Bill
the Gates with billions and billions...his response was
that "they were still debating that down at the club".
As to evidence to refute this belief...
Example one: monopolies exist, and have existed. Someone with enough money, and few ethics, buys up, and/or destroys rivals (e.g., in the early part of the century, LA had a truly excellent interurban and intraurban streetcar system; in the late thirties, it was bought by a company that was elling concrete, and building freeways, and literally run into the ground, and broken up; another example is Standard Oil of New Jersey, the basis of the antitrust laws; yet another is the current monopoly of Micro$oft, regardless of lack of quality). A free market allows for no collective defense against monopolies.
Example two: for those of you with children in school, do you *want* them listening to what are apparently school-approved commercials? For that matter, many of the for-profit companies that were given a chance to run local school systems in the last five years are now going belly-up, or getting out of the business.
Example three: the current market, where filling a market niche is not the primary goal of most companies, but rather "returning value to the investors (and the CEO, with his stock options)" is *far* more important that giving the customer what they have paid for.
Example four: lack of long-term support. There are *many* lumber companies for whom it is simple business sense to replant logged areas, so that they can harvest them again in 20-50 years. Instead, many companies have been caught, time and time again, in doing a lick and a promise...and going on to work at obtaining rights to public lands for future logging. For that matter, there is *no* major support for a commercial space program. 15 years ago, there was a company that had raised $1,000,000,000 to buy a Shuttle of their own. Never happened. Artemis, which is now publicly traded, couldn't convince the stock exchange that they really could get hardware into orbit, and are a "publishing company". Given the volatility of the market, I see *no* support from the business community, and what little there is, is *only* for LEO (low earth orbit) - weather, communications, etc.
So, with the above examples, we have *shown* that the "free market" does *not* solve all problems.
Another belief of the libertarians: you can *always* find work, and if there's none here, you can always go elsewhere.
As a counterarguemen: when companies shipped so much manufacturing overseas, or to Mexico, where are the hundreds of thousands of now-unemployed workers to go? Should they leave their families, and move to South Korea or Mexico...and earn a fraction of what they did before they lost their jobs? Should they leave their communities, and their families...but the libertarians neve r talk about the effect of this "take a hike" on either families or communities. For that matter, what about debts? It is generally considered poor form, to say the least, for you to leave somewhere, when you owe money. Should someone out of work declare bankruptcy...or just walk out on their debts (and, perhaps, child support...)? I know of *no* company that does not want "payment arrangements" to begin immediately, or within the month.
And suppose your family has been here for the last 100 years, and you don't want to leave? Sorry, that's not "enlightened self-interest".
Now, about that "taking a hike" to look for work, when you are in debt: who enforces contracts? The libertarians tend to look down on all branches of government...so when they say, "if you didn't get what you were supposed to, take 'em to court", what court? Do you, as an individual, have the resources to sue a multinational? The amjority of Americans certainly don't. Nor can they afford a team of lawyers, to counter the corporate law staff.
Then, there's the actual enforcement of laws, and contracts. Who does this? Are the libertarians pro-police? All I ever hear from them is that they are against the goverment forcing you to do things. How does this relate to enforcement of contract law?
While we're speaking of enforcement, the one part of the government that the libertarians apparently believe is valid is the military. Thirty years ago, there was in item in the local paper (I believe it was the Philadelphia Bulletin, now out of business), that it was well-known, and documented, that for the amount required to create one job in the military-industrial complex, 22 jobs could be created in the private sector...and yet the part of government that has the *lowest* rate of return on investment (I'm *not* including the pay for the actual soldiers and sailors, etc) is the part that they believe should have the most spent on it.
Furthermore, they claim to worry about the government enforcing its
will on them...and yet, if the government was to actually want to
do so, it would use the military. I have heard claims that the
folks in the military would refuse to obey illeagle orders...and
think back to Vietnam...and Kent State. One wonders if they believe
in a "libertarian army"
In summary, I have given evidence, above, that demonstrates that their claims are not valid, that in the large scale, they fail to meet the test of reality, and that their beliefs come down to just that...just like the True-believer Communists of old, who accepted Stalin's purges.
Please email the author with corrections and/or additions.
mark, (c) 2001