Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs The Free Market

Posted by Liberty_one February 22, 2012 at 8:01 a.m.

Common Myths and Misconceptions

I hear a lot of myths and misconceptions about libertarianism and free market capitalism around here, so I decided to put them in a list for easy reference.

  1. Government is society. This is by far the most common misconception I hear. The usual way this comes out is in an accusation that if I don't want the government to do something, I must not want that thing done at all. This is of course, absurd. It's like saying that because I don't want the state to maintain a state religion that I'm for no one being allowed to follow a religion. Government is a minority part of society. It is a separate and distinct group of people. Saying the government does X is a convenient metaphor since it is actually persons A, B and C who are part of the government minority who are doing X.

  2. Laissez-Faire, free market capitalism means anyone can do any terrible thing they want. This comes about occasionally as people have a false idea about what free market capitalism is. It is primarily a system of property rights protections, not a free-for-all. As such, crimes like theft and fraud are still against the law. People and firms cannot just do as they please. In addition, firms cannot pollute anywhere they want as that would be an invasion of other people's property rights. In some ways, capitalism would be a far stricter regulation upon people's behavior. This is of course in addition to economic and social regulations which also act as a check upon actions.

  3. You want the poor and old to die in the streets, or some other bad outcome. This comes about from a complete denial of the possibility that there might be other ways to achieve similar results. People think like this because they have been living under government control of such things as health care and education that they cannot conceive of a world in which the government did not supply these services. If the government provided everyone with "free" shoes and I advocated an end to this, these very same people will decry, how will the poor get shoes? This is simply because the institutions that would replace the government bureaucracies don't exist and so people cannot imagine what life would be like without government providing certain services. Thus they see only one possible outcome and anyone who desires such changes must, in their minds, desire the only possible outcome imaginable to the myth-believer.

  4. Your ideas are utopian. None of my ideas require a perfect world/conditions to exist nor do they claim to create a perfect world. In fact, they are based on the fact that the world is not perfect, that resources are scarce, that disputes will commonly arise. It is never the case that I am claiming that liberty will create perfection, only that my system is better than other systems. There will still be crime, disease, poverty and the like. I only claim that libertarianism can reduce these undesirable things better than other systems. No political/economic system can eliminate them.

  5. You care only about the wealthy and not the poor and unfortunate. This is similar to number three in that since people disagree with me about the outcomes of my ideas, they believe that I want the outcomes to come about that they think will happen. In reality I believe my ideas will be beneficial to everyone in society, from top to bottom. It is certainly fair to disagree with me about the outcomes of my ideas, but it is not fair to impugn my motives.

  6. You only want X because X personally benefits you. This often comes up regarding taxation, as in I only want to end taxation because of personal greed, or in regards to some other policy which it is presumed must highly benefit me. This is wrong for two reasons. First, my views are based on a wide-reaching moral philosophy of personal rights. It would be highly inconsistent of me to only support liberty when it didn't affect me or when I had nothing to gain. Second, my views of liberty are that increased liberty is beneficial to everyone in society. The myth seems to be that I wish to gain at someone else's expense, however I believe that my ideas will benefit everyone. It is fair to disagree about the amount and breadth of the supposed benefits, but not to impugn my motives.

  7. You want to legalize X, so you must support X. This comes up with issues like ending drug prohibition or legalizing prostitution. Just because I think it should be legal do something doesn't mean I think it's moral or wise to do something or that I want people to engage in it. My views are based on rights and liberty, not on how I want to craft society.

Comments

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

  1. kansanbygrace (anonymous) says…

    5. That there is such a thing as "free market capitalism"

    Capitalism is structured so the suppliers of one non-consumable and non-constructive fungible resource ("credit"or "investment") gets to write the rules of interaction, market the product or service, and determine distribution of the proceeds.

    Get rid of the laws that establish such a distorted relationship and you get free-market trade of goods and services. Then you might have a chance at a sustainable system.

    Take your pick...free market or capitalism.

    1. Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…

      Actually you appear to be talking about mercantilism, not capitalism.

      But you are right, get rid of the mercantilism and then you can have a sustainable system--capitalism.

      1. kansanbygrace (anonymous) replies…

        No, I'm not talking about mercantilism. China provides an example of a system more like mercantilism, in which the manipulation of trade for the government's benefit is the dominant strategic element. The cheating there is not "allowed" It is structural.

        I'm talking about our corporate form of capitalism which has an extremely complex playbook of rules written by business but empowered by government at their behest, which give dominant discretion to the provider of capital. This is exactly what we have in the United States and other economic entities governed by the global banking and monetary exchange powers, such as the European Union, Japan, Korea.
        This control is accomplished through resigning economic sovereignty, in our case, to the Fed, a privately owned and controlled entity, rather than being determined by the republican (small r) Department of the Treasury.

        Free markets would not be so rigidly manipulated and controlled as either of the above.

        1. Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…

          OK, if you think so, but you are talking about mercantilism in both cases. The Federal Reserve is the main point of mercantilism.

  2. JackMcKee (anonymous) says…

    I predict that in 10 years libertarianism will be uttered with the same disdain and taint as socialism with Ayn Rand playing the role of Lenin.

    1. Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…

      Strange that you would think so considering it is a growing movement. This is clear from Dr. Paul's rise from complete anonymity to the national stage as well as the increase in votes libertarian candidates got in the 2010 election compared to previous years.

      The biggest change I have noted over the past few years is that our arguments are now being responded to. Before, folks in the two mainstream camps just ignored us, but now they are responding to what we say. It was simply unheard of that someone would have to defend the existence of the Federal Reserve. Policy was debated but the idea that there shouldn't be a central bank was simply impossible. Now, people in the mainstream actually feel like they must defend these institutions whereas before they were just assumed--clearly a sign of our growing popularity.

    2. Gotland (anonymous) replies…

      Libertarians are the only alternative to the one party with two names we have now.

      1. Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) replies…

        +1. Good points. The R's and D's pretend like they serve different masters. If the Libertarians would develop a rational foreign policy and get off their silly "return to the gold standard" kick, they might gain some traction.

        1. Lateralis (anonymous) replies…

          Rational foreign policy? You can change the hearts and minds of those nations like Iran and Cuba by trade and diplomacy not bombs and sanctions.

          The current foreign policy is one of special interests and only makes the world a more dangerous place.

      2. tange (anonymous) replies…

        ... and the only alternative with one candidate having two first names, wow.

    3. Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…

      As if we'll care.

  3. headdoctor (anonymous) says…

    Sorry folks. The modern Libertarians aren't any better choice. Just another pile of the same type of poop. It seems that most of the Libertarians who are making noise are NeoLiberals just like the Republicans and many of the Democrats and the rest of their political beliefs aren't much different in substance than the tea baggers. It is no wonder that Ron Paul changed parties. If you compare his stated beliefs to the Libertarian philosophy, he had to wake up every morning a very confused man.

    1. Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…

      As a libertarian all that sounds fine to me.

      Stay off my lawn.

    2. headdoctor (anonymous) replies…

      If you, Liberty275 think what I posted sounds fine to you, then you as well as Liberty_one are not Libertarians. You are nothing more than an Anarchist hiding behind the Libertarian name. You might as well switch parties like Ron Paul did. I am not saying the Republicans are Anarchist but their modern political philosophy is as close as your going to come with a party that may have some chance in an election.

  4. tange (anonymous) says…

    I had thought I might address your mythic assertions point by point, but I don't find enough clarity in your presentation to assemble a coherent response. So, let me leave you with this, instead. Go take some classes in meteorology and agriculture. Somewhere between that turbulent system which bathes us, beyond our control if not our influence, and that highly refined endeavor producing the fruits which sustain us lie the seeds of an economic model serving prediction, proaction, and efficacy.

    Liberate yourself from the Libertarian lexicon; punt the political palaver.

    1. Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…

      you are unable to assemble a coherent response. Lack of cohesion in thinking is kind of your thing, isn't it?

      1. tange (anonymous) replies…

        Sometimes my brain gets stuck to the roof of my cranium.

        1. Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…

          You must have had to reach up a long way to pull it out. ;-}

          1. tange (anonymous) replies…

            I just shake it loose with my Libobbletarian impersonation.

    2. vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…

      Nice allegory tange.

      1. tange (anonymous) replies…

        Oh, not intended as (mere) allegory.
        Often, the more fruitful paradigm shifts result from the infusion of concepts from one discipline into another. Perhaps not unexpectedly, leaps are more likely to be spurred from without—within, too long mired in its own muck.

  5. Liberty275 (anonymous) says…

    "Government is a minority part of society."

    No. Society hires government to do a job. My boss (who will certainly see this) hired me to do a job. I can tell you they and I are entire anonymous entities.

    The analogy is irrefutable. At best you can argue government employees from the citizenry, but in their official role, they are expected to act with utter detachment and merely ask how high when we say jump - as long as we don't frivolously tell them to do other than what our constitution demands.

    "This is simply because the institutions that would replace the government bureaucracies don't exist"

    They exist but have been largely neutered by secularist under the first amendment's religion clause. Sadly, in their vulgar war, they have only handed government more power with little care if people starve.

    Otherwise, nice hit right out of the park.

  6. tange (anonymous) says…

    tange say: "lose the libertarian lexicon; punt the political palaver."

    ... or not; there's plenty of room in the dust bin.

Reply 23 comments from Tange Headdoctor Liberty275 Jesse Crittenden Lateralis and 5 others

Marketplace

Keith Jones DDS 785-841-0233

Find more businesses on Marketplace

Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services