http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/17/why-li...

Here's an awesome rebuttal from Reason.com:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/17/why-li...

this article is such a mess that it is hard to follow. -- j
.

Right before that it sets the stage by saying libertarianism is inherently "rigid", "authoritarian","intolerant of dissent", and allows "no room to maneuver". You could write this exact same article about extremist adherents of any idea: It's impractical because it's inflexible and radical.

He's attacking a straw man.

I mostly agree with this article up to the point where it slanders libertarian ideas as "impracticable". From there on it's just idiocy.

In fairness to Ron Paul, he has called for competing currencies also.

If we agree that the Fed is a key source of economic trouble and that, ideally, it would be disbanded, then we can talk about technique and timing. If, however, you believe the Fed is good for the economy, then I can understand you would be horrified by the thought of getting rid of it.

First we must agree on the goal, then we can work on the incremental steps to reach that goal. Libertarianism is not all-or-nothing. Anything that moves the ball toward the freedom goal is a positive and will generate benefits for society. So while I'd like to see the IRS and the Income Tax repealed in its' entirety, I'll take a 10% reduction as a good first step. While I believe the Fed is a cancer on our economy and should be abolished as quickly as possible, I'll take revoking legal tender laws as a big step forward.

This article is about the straw man of radical libertarism. Mainstream politicians would rather argue with the straw man of eliminating most modern gov't functions than a day than argue with with the idea of freezing gov't spending at present nominal levels and slightly decreasing gov't powers. Democrats and Republicans don't want to have to say the truth aloud, "no, we want gov't powers and spending to increase each year."

I think the first move toward freedom in the monetary arena would be making sure there is no legal prejudice against competing currencies.

Just shutting down the Fed would cause a financial panic. And very few people understand why that would even be a good thing in the long run. Typical histories of the economy favorably compare the Fed era to the panics and instability of the 19th Century. I don't think that interpretation is fair, but it's standard and the rebuttal is not obvious.

For what it's worth, I don't think government was wholly to blame for the financial crisis. There was private irrationality, too: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/comme...

Shutting down the Fed is a necessity, wouldn't you say? Libertarianism (Austrian economists in particular) have noted the root of the financial problem is the manipulation of money. Are libertarians wrong to name the evil, or is society wrong for believing in a false system?

That is a good example of libertarianism being right and society being wrong...but it is libertarianism that is discarded. I conclude that society is delusional.

I can't fault the premise that "... libertarianism now has a certain freshness because it seems to cross the otherwise impregnable line between right and left. Sharply reducing the role of government in American life, libertarianism’s primary objective, appeals to conservatives because it offers an end to Obamacare, Social Security and other programs that transfer public money to the less well-off. Yet it also attracts liberal voters who ardently oppose invasions of privacy and bloated defense spending.

[Libertarian-leaning GOP hopeful Rand] Paul’s appeal doesn’t stop there, however. He understands that the GOP base is getting older and whiter — which bodes badly for the party’s future. He is reaching out to minorities. By attacking his party’s attempts to restrict the vote, Paul could attract many African-American and Latino voters. He has also appealed to younger voters by calling for less restrictive drug laws, for example, and speaking at college campuses, where older Republicans have been loathe to appear."

The problem is 1) most libertarians are too doctrinaire: Ron Paul's statement that he would shut down the Fed is classic, in this respect;. and 2) the public doesn't understand the enormous costs and inefficiencies caused by government overstepping its bounds.

After all, everyone thinks (incorrectly) that the market was completely to blame for the financial crisis, right? See my review of a (non-libertarian) book that surveys the causes, yet comes to the wrong conclusions: http://reasonpapers.com/wp-content/uploa...

As far as the number of corporations involved, they may well be few. But the power of a mega-billion dollar market capitalization is impressive. Every industry has its lobbyists, and I'm pretty sure they keep a close eye on any legislation that affects their business interests. Doesn't mean they always get their way.

I stopped at the error that Rand was somehow the founder of libertarianism and that she was an authoritarian.

It's true that libertarianism has a difficult time getting traction in today's political environment. Is that because libertarianism is impractical, or because our society is delusional?

I really don't think there's a whole lot of butt-kissing the Marxist One corrupt crony capitalist corporations out there.
They are there but I think they amount to a minority.

Both Stalin-ism and Nazi-ism are forms of extreme left wing socialism.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Mudslinging claptrap. He has Rand wrong. He has libertarianism wrong. Libertarianism certainly did not grow from Objectivism. Rand in her time, relating to the libertarians of her time, had no interest in their ism. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libert...
Of course he must slime that which he fears and denounce its practicality. Of course, since neither have truly been implemented before, he has no actual evidence.
I think HIS ideology and intolerance is showing.

I despise when people misrepresent Ayn Rand,
especially using such terms as "authoritarian". As
a matter of fact, she repudiated the Libertarian Part-
y, calling them "hippies-of-the-right [hyphens or not,
I don't remember] who want to play at politics
without philosophy..."

These "2 intelligent liberals" you know....and yet not intelligent enough to explain why they
see Palin as "crazy"? No surprise there....

If I were king, no body would be allowed to graduate high school if they didn't first pass a class in logic. And if that were the case, Alan Wolfe would be a 73 year old High School senior.

I was dismayed when two intelligent liberals I know summed up their opposition to Sarah Palin with the words, "She's crazy." (and were not able to tell me 'why'). This reminded me so much of the Equal Rights Amendment of the 1970's, which was brought down by the conservatives circulating the rumor, "That is not the whole Law."

Now I am being reminded of both of those occurrences again. It does not matter how specious the argument is, just whether or not some telling phrase 'sticks'.

Jan

I do not care what political party is represented by what candidate, they all in their own way want to exercise control over the masses. All these political types are ALL the same. The writer of the article does not understand Ayn Rand"s philosophy which I base on the comments made about her. I can only imagine how wonderful the world would be if the bulk of humanity functioned based upon OBJECTIVISM. But in order for that to happen the bulk of the population will have to be educated and that is so far off it is like flying to Jupiter. Do to the fact that our population is generally educated to about 5th grade level the person that is elected to be the president will effectively continue the damage done by their predecessors.