Books / Internet / Politics

Why Your Libertarian Friends Should Shut Up about the Economy

First of all, when I say “libertarian,” I mean this in the standard US sense of “economic libertarian” or “free-market libertarian.” “Civil libertarians” and “libertarian socialists” are not the same, and I don’t have any beef with them. So for the rest of this article, when I say “libertarian,” you know what I mean.

ron swanson

Now that that’s out of the way: Libertarians are fucking children who shouldn’t be allowed to speak when adults are having a serious discussion about the economy.

I know you all have at least one libertarian friend. Although he is most likely a white male, I’m not going to dwell on that fact, hilarious though it definitely is, and will instead focus on why all of his cracker arguments are wrong and he looks stupid.

Ha-Joon Chang has argued far more successfully than I can that there is no definable thing called the free market. His most recent books are easily stolen off the internet (ya-har!) and his engaging talks are available on YouTube. I invite you to peruse all of that information at your leisure, but will continue the article with the assumption that your eyes glazed over when I invited you to read an actual economist.

(Still though, watch it.)

Libertarians put a lot of stock in this thing called a “free market,” but it’s never clear what that would actually look like. They claim that people shouldn’t interfere in “the free market” and that its “invisible hand” will sort everything out. But the fact that there is no definable thing called a “free market” raises very real question about libertarianism, predicated as it is upon the idea that “the free market” should be the basis of economics, and therefore the common livelihood of human civilization (a kind of universal law, if you will). This idea that “the free market” is its own justifiable end is based on flagrant misreadings of Adam Smith, a dead white guy who was at least not as stupid as the libertarians. It does not have any basis in reality.

So let’s discuss how the economy works and what a “free market” would actually look like, shall we?

Libertarians and other people who are uncritical of capitalism often charge socialists with wanting to steal from people what they have “earned” “honestly” (even though even the idots over at Time Magazine have wised up to the fact that social mobility is quite limited and people tend to be born into wealth, even if they use those privileges to get wealthier), and these honest earnings are what they claim to be the basis for “the free market.”

It is clear that none of these people have read Marx, as this charge is not new nor is it correct. The Marxist opposition to “private property” is to be distinguished from “personal property.” The former refers something that one profits off of while making others work, the latter does not. The Marxist fixation is on the “means of production” and the control of them by those who work them. “Private property” by contrast, is the opposite, that someone should own the means of production and then hire others to work it for them. You do all the work, I’ll get all the money! The Marxist answer is that the economy should be controlled democratically. We don’t have to be Marxists to see that our current system involves cronyism between the state (controlled by the rich) and corporations and banks.

Libertarians believe that private property is the answer to all problems that exist or could potentially exist (individual liberties being predicated upon ownership of the self). Although very rarely are they aware of or able to rebut arguments distinguishing private from personal property as they ignorantly accuse critics of capitalism of supporting theft by the state, apparently they want us to distinguish between “common” and “public” property. They argue that once something “common” (like a street) enters into the realm of economics, this economic reality ought to be dealt with through privatization.

This is where I begin to suspect that libertarians have not really considered what a truly free market would look like. If a street ought to be privatized on the grounds that it needs economic upkeep, could we not say the same of water? It is theoretically possible (and therefore moral and correct, according to libertarians) for a small group of very rich people to purchase all of the drinkable water on Earth. They would invest in its storage and upkeep, and therefore anyone else who wanted to drink water would indeed be hostage to their demands. So since anything can be privatized, hoarding of all the world’s drinkable water, rather than being an act of terrorism, is simply an expression of someone’s rights within the free market.

Some libertarians may object at this point, but one has to ask: What libertarian principle can you invoke that would make such behavior unlawful? Libertarians often get angry at the idea of welfare, claiming that there is no obligation to take care of others (many support the idea of charity, but not “forced charity;” they seem to think poor people want “charity” because it’s “nice,” not because it’s necessary!). They oppose the minimum wage and unions on the grounds that the state shouldn’t be preventing people from forming whatever sort of business arrangements they want. They would certainly oppose a government forcibly extracting a resource from a private owner because other people (non-owners) needed their property to survive. Therefore, if someone could acquire all the world’s drinkable water with the goal of hoarding it, the criminals would be those who liberated it back for the masses.

big ass fish

Critics of capitalism hate this fish because it’s so free.

Libertarians often claim that in a truly free market, people will be free to negotiate fair wages. But in fact, prior to government intervention in capitalism, people were paid less, children were forced to work, and workers had less rights on the job, so this “negotiation” really just means that those that are already rich can bully the poor more easily. But even for rich people, the idea that deciding everything based on economic competition in “the free market” is the best idea is doubtful: Why is it that people trying to turn a profit by feeding other people have a nasty habit of lying about what they’re actually feeding us, and why does that hated big government keep having to step in and introduce more laws about food sanitation? There’s the real invisible hand of “the free market” for you!

Some libertarians will claim that just as they’re not pro-union, they’re not “pro-corporation.” Indeed, most libertarians I know keep insisting on their support for “entrepreneurs.” But this is not a legal distinction they’d be able to enforce. If they passed some law against corporations and unions, what would it even look like? “We forbid people from working together for common economic goals.” Hardly in line with their espoused values of mutualism and free economic choice! “We want a free market, not big business.” So you’re going to tell people how big they can build their business?

As noted in that link above, one of the reasons why smarter libertarians distance themselves from corporations is because they’re fully aware of the phenomenon of corporatism, by which corporations and the government work hand in hand. But there isn’t just one “government” in the world, and “government” doesn’t just take one form. What makes the person in charge “the government”? If one rich family owns everything, do they only become the government if they enlist a parliament and standing army? I suppose one could argue to libertarians that Saudi Arabia is the property of the House of Saud (whose shrewd business sense put them in charge of it!), and that if these owners (the family’s name is right there in the country! it’s plainly theirs!) wanted to kick off the looter population, they would be within their rights. Right now, the House of Saud benevolently allows these non-members of the family to stay on their land (which they own) and parasitically take money from their oil profits, and all they ask in return is that they live under rules that they (the rightful owners!) set to keep the peace. If these looters don’t like it, they can fuck off! Libertarians would look silly indeed criticizing the government of Saudi Arabia, since that country does not belong to a “Saudi people” (and anyway, as we learned above, libertarians don’t believe in public property, so they’d look silly defending “popular sovereignty” as a concept in the first place!), it belongs to a royal family, and they can do with their property what they want! They are if anything too tolerant. The entire legal population of Saudi Arabia is the royal family, everyone else should be treated like foreigners (because they are living off the kindness of the owners of the land), the same way servants are treated as employees (not residents) at mansions. If they were to turn Saudi Arabia into a republic, they would be thieves who owed the rightful owners for property damages. This might all sound crazy, but this is pretty much what happened to Haiti, and that’s why Haiti is such a mess.

saudi arabia

The free market.

Speaking of religious nutjobs, since many libertarians I know are also atheist-secularists, I am curious what force is meant to prevent rich religious people from forcing their religion into the sector of the economy that they control (again, particularly worrisome if they obtain a monopoly)? If money itself is equal to legitimacy in a society ruled by “the free market,” and we know that many religious nutjobs are loaded, is the only hope for secularism that the sum total of money held by secularists and atheists is greater than the sum total of money held by religious fanatics? How would a country bought by a rich Christian nutjob be better than a dictatorship headed by a Christian nutjob? According to libertarians though, the former is proof of why the state is bad but the latter cannot be assailed because the free market allowed it! Corporations themselves are run very similarly to governments If a monopoly exists on everything (and of course, if the government doesn’t interfere in “the free market,” there can be no anti-monopoly laws, since people would have theoretically infinite rights to private property, provided it is “honestly” acquired by purchase or investment) how is this different from a totalitarian state controlling the resources (libertarians themselves often compare the state to a monopoly)?

Libertarians often claim to oppose US wars (and nobody is more opposed to US wars than me, so I certainly agree with their anti-war stance), but how can they vilify mercenaries? If the US government hires mercenaries (like say, Blackwater) to go bomb foreign countries, how is this different to our current army (which is not a conscript army)? If a war is fought for US economic interests (which one can argue that they all are), isn’t this just defense of property? The only reason the corporations can’t just hire mercenaries themselves is those pesky big government laws. If those are gotten rid of and we just have “the free market”, who stops rich people from hiring thugs to kill people? And if it’s proven that rich people “own” the US in a literal sense, will libertarians stop being down on government, since it’s been legally paid for (those lobbies bought those politicians and this country fair and square!)?

I don’t mean to defend the government, or unions, or the communist party. I defend the right of living human beings to not be poor, while libertarians deny such a right exists, while positing in opposition a right to be rich. Our opposing views reveal that one of us is concerned enough with those who suffer to invent a right, and one is concerned that those who already aren’t suffering aren’t enjoying themselves enough to invent a right. It should be obvious why I find the other side troubling.

I am leaving this open, as I have no doubt that no matter how intellectually bankrupt an ideology libertarianism is, there is some dedicated fanatic out there willing to attempt to answer these questions. Leave a link to your angry blog entry in the comments, so we can all read your explanation about how you don’t live in a fantasy world and you’re not just trying to protect the existing privileges of white males and rich people.


30 thoughts on “Why Your Libertarian Friends Should Shut Up about the Economy

  1. Interesting to think about where private property comes from. I suppose, in an anarchy, your only right to private property comes from superior firepower, essentially. So one of the most basic functions of government, I guess, is to say that if you put up a house in the woods, you should be able to claim a reasonable amount of space around that house as your own, so as no one can intrude on you and your right to privacy. How do we decide who gets the oil fields, though? If it’s just the first person to build an oil rig on it, there would be a turf war, which we couldn’t allow in a libertarian society. So even in a purely libertarian society, there seems to be the need for some larger entity with the power to dole out private property…

    Oh, and whoever wrote this article seems to misstate the difference between “personal property” and “private property”. The former is movable, so, say, something I made or bought, like a couch, or I guess even some houses…private property is not movable, so basically land.

    The argument at the end about mercenaries is a really bad one. Corporations can’t legally hire mercenaries because murder is a crime. Why would libertarians be unopposed to corporate warfare, but opposed to government warfare? I think even in the libertarian philosophy, the ability to raise army to defend the country is a basic function reserved for the government.

    Libertarian socialism vs. free market libertarianism. That’s an interesting debate. Interesting in that I, for one, have a hard time understanding the distinctions between the two. If we basically start with the assumption that the government, for all intents and purposes, does not exist in either society, who exactly is to say whether the economy is capitalist or socialist? I guess that’s my issue when people talk about “Anarcho-Capitalism” and “Anarcho-Communism”, it’s all bs. There’s just “Anarchy”, really, as any economic distinction is made by the state. Sure, people can decide how their economy is run, but only on a local scale, and nothing stops a locality of people from doing things one way or the other. In a libertarian society, I suppose there is a government which can either protect or dismiss the right to private property, but then this goes back to my first point…Imagine a socialist libertarian society where there is a spring that people get their water from. This spring is public property, and no one can claim that they own the exclusive right to it or the water contained in it; people are free to draw up water from it. What’s the stop someone from spending their day drawing up water and delivering it to people in the area in exchange for other valuable goods, say, gold? What is to stop that same person from using that gold to give to others in exchange for their help in delivering water to people in greater amounts for greater profit? Isn’t that capitalism? Like you said yourself, there IS no definable thing that is “the free market”.

    Just some thoughts from someone who loosely identifies as “Libertarian”, though is clearly not sure exactly which kind, and likes to play devil’s advocate either way.

    • Just a brief response concerning your confusion about “Libertarian Socialist” versus “Free Market Libertarianism”:

      The word “libertarian” is a political construct that refers to a philosophic disposition of the primacy of liberty of one man from the whims or demands of another. The word does not necessarily apply to economics; however, in modern political discourse, the political right has co-opted and re-appropriated the language and ideas from libertarian socialists to apply them to economic arguments. Libertarian Socialists posit, more or less, that issues of personal morality that only directly affect the individual should remain beyond the scope of government (or social) regulation; however, management of the economy, economic behavior, and the provision and production of goods and services should be decided democratically with society’s broadest interests in mind. In their view, true economic liberty comes from unfettered access to basic needs and easy (and willful) entry into economic participation, both of which require external and impartial legal protections from the owners of capital (in a modern context). This is a quick and dirty summation written off the cuff that leaves out a lot of nuance, but I’m just trying to give you an idea.

      Free-market libertarians, on the other hand, apply the language and constructs of “liberty” to both personal morality issues and economic issues.

    • “The argument at the end about mercenaries is a really bad one. Corporations can’t legally hire mercenaries because murder is a crime.” Well they wouldn’t CALL it murder. The mercenaries would just be protecting the property of corporations, who legally bought everything.

      “Why would libertarians be unopposed to corporate warfare, but opposed to government warfare?” That’s exactly what I’m wondering. I’m wondering why the government can’t just say it’s protecting its property and libertarians won’t just back off. I tried to raise in the article repeatedly the question of where the right to purchase certain things comes from, because if you just declare that “the free market” is the answer to EVERYTHING, as the libertarians I know and who argue with me often do declare, you don’t have any objective reason why the entire planet isn’t for sale. If you argue “it’s no one’s to sell”, you could argue that for much smaller plots of property as well, which like “the planet” originally didn’t have a legally recognized owner. If the UN today just sold the planet to one rich guy, would libertarians claim that “a government doesn’t have the right to sell”, because then you have to apply the same reasoning to almost all property ever, which was once owned by one government or other (if you go back to feudalism, which as the example of Saudi Arabia proves, is not that far back in a lot of the world, and in the grand scheme of things, is not that far back anywhere).

      • Just because you don’t CALL something murder, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Corporations, such as banks, hire security all the time, Are those not mercenaries? It doesn’t give them the right to shoot people because they feel like it, you still need to balance the right to your property with the right to life. The government is obligated to establish rules about when you can and cannot forcibly protect your property, even in a libertarian society. You can charge corporations with criminal offense too.

        How could the government possibly justify its conduct in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, etc, etc, as defense of property? Actually, that’s the whole debate, isn’t it? The government tried to pretend that Afghanistan and Iraq were about protecting America, which if true, would be something that libertarians would support, but it’s bullshit in the first place, which is why those wars are opposed by most libertarians. The government has the obligation to protect the country, but no right to play world police. With all due respect, your logic of “if they say so, than it must be true, right?” is the basis of your argument here, which seems like a strawman to me.

    • Concerning Libertarian Anarchy, as per Rothbard’s philosophy, property can be claimed by an individual only if he mixes his labor with it. In other words, one cannot claim land by simply putting a fence around it, but has to actually do something with it – till, build a house, etc. So with oil, anybody can build an oil rig (private) over an oil well (private) over a petroleum deposit, but can never claim the petroleum deposit itself as private. Another individual can build his own private setup in parallel to this one, over the same oil deposit. Also, while the oil drawn through the oil rig can be sold, it is to be noted that what is being sold is the service/labor of drawing oil from the deposit and not the resource itself.

      About libertarians believing that one of the basic roles of the government is to maintain an armed force to defend the country. I’d like to add that many libertarians believe in conscription. This comes from the fact that no price can be put on a life, so nobody can be paid any tangible amount to work in a life threatening environment and this still be called a fair trade. Anyone attempting to pay another to perform his duty in this regard is in essence a “freeloader”.

  2. My contention has always been that the problem with Big Government (while it exists) is not a problem of Government. It is a problem of Big. Big Anything perpetuates its own power for the sake of power, and that is a problem. Big Unions have lost the moral high ground that small unions deservedly had, Big Business has squandered and wasted the trust we once gave it, and Big Government expands the surveillance state without real purpose. The only reason Big Government is any more of a problem than the others is that it has Big Guns and Big Brother.

  3. This is the problem with allowing OTHER people to DEFINE one’s OWN philosophical beliefs. If they disagree with your beliefs, they will inevitably try to define those beliefs in the most negative, dogmatic and generalized terms ……. avoiding all subtlety and nuance. There are many different aspects of Libertarian thought …. even about economics. Libertarians themselves cannot …. and do not …. agree on all the ways that a Libertarian framework can be applied in practical terms. They do not all agree with each other about what IS the proper role of the government in the lives of individual citizens. I consider myself to be an independent Libertarian. Yet, I also recognize that I live in a real world peopled by imperfect and fallible human beings and corrupt governments made up of imperfect and fallible human beings. I recognize that SOME degree of government IS necessary. The question is, how MUCH government intrusion into the lives of individual citizens is REALLY necessary? That has been the core question of political philosophy throughout our human existence. What IS the proper relationship between the individual and the state? There is no reason why Libertarians, or anyone, should “shut up” about the economy. It’s called DEBATE. It has gone on throughout human history and will continue to go on. The author of this article is not God. He is not omniscient. If someone told him to shut up about the economy, he would no doubt be offended and feel that his intelligence was being insulted. Nevertheless, he feels justified in telling others to shut up simply because they happen to have a philosophical disagreement with him. Where is the vaunted “tolerance” in THAT attitude ……. the tolerance which so-called “progressives” keep praising themselves for? There are many other Libertarians who I myself often disagree with …. on issues like abortion, taxation, certain aspects of foreign policy, immigration, etc. However, true libertarians do share some basic principles. We do NOT believe in physical COERCION …. either by individuals, governments or corporate entities …. to DICTATE to other individuals what they must believe in, how they must live their OWN lives, or how they can use their own legitimate property ……. as long as they recognize the SAME rights for others, and do not abuse the legitimate property of others. We also do NOT believe in counter-productive and knee-jerk foreign interventionist wars that are wasteful of the resources that we need for the defense of our own homeland. We do NOT believe in the continuing and irresponsible accumulation of massive debt that only weakens us in the long term …. debt which is borrowed money wasted on support for authoritarian foreign regimes and a huge number of unnecessary military bases around the world. We are also convinced that the Federal regime is, unquestionably, pervasively corrupt and in league with corporate oligarchies that have been allowed to BECOME monopolistic oligarchies precisely BECAUSE they have long been the beneficiaries of specially-targeted legislation passed by Congress that shields them from serious competition, subsidizes them, and which often protects them from legal liability when they violate the law. Crony CORPORATISM …. oligarchies protected and UN-Constitutionally subsidized by the Federal regime …. have NOTHING to do with independent and UN-subsidized “mom and pop” entrepreneurship that must operate under regulations and laws that are SUPPOSED to be applied impartially, and without favoritism, to ANY business enterprise.

    • Agreed (thought your comment could have done without the CAPS, it makes it all come across rather condescending) . I think this author took a very narrow, extremist view of Libertarianism and used it to not only refute libertarianism as a whole but actually insult anyone who identified with the ideology. It’s this kind of thinking that is the root of anti-muslim sentiment in this country. Libertarianism, as discussed here, can loosely apply to anyone who wishes to see less government intervention in economic and social matters, and the degree to which people believe this varies greatly. For example, I admire Ron Paul, though I don’t consider myself as extreme as him, and I take issue with a few of his stances, but even Ron Paul isn’t a fan of Ayn Rand.

  4. How about reading Austrian Economics first, specially the books from Ludwig von Mises? You only mentioned Marx, but how about all the pro-free market and pro-liberty economists such as Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and even Milton Friedman? I strongly suggest that you look it up for the ideas that they defend if you really want a strong critique on libertarianism.

      • “Milton Friedman LOL”

        So, this is the best you got? You basically wrote of page proving 1+1=3 and have an image of you giving the finger and this is somehow making you intelligent and mature?

        Seriously, this is the most ridiculous thing I’ll read forever. Thanks for the laugh. Thanks for the stereotypes. I think the most severe racist can take advice from this non-sense article.

        You almost hit a point somewhere in there but now go write about how evolutionist are stupid for believing humans came from monkey’s. Spread the ignorance.

  5. No offense, but you really don’t grasp Libertarianism at all. If you want to actually critique the philosophy in a way that someone other than rabid circle-jerkers will take you seriously, you first need to dissociate your comparisons from Statist societies.

    You talk about the differences between a dictator and someone who “buys the country”. What country? Countries are lines on the map, drawn up by Statists.

    This is a very basic concept that you apparently don’t even grasp.

    As Stefan Molyneaux once said, “Immigration? Oh you mean as we’d calling ‘moving’?”

    If you want to apply Libertarian principles to a Statist society and claim it won’t work, you’re doing about as much good as stating a car won’t work using a 3 day old orange as a power source. No shit, it’s not designed to function that way.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled critique of something you know very little about.

    • same old argument from libertarians every time…”you don’t understand libertarians.” libertarians are so diverse, they are the most disjointed of either party. But when someone dares to tackle the issues that are consistent with all , libertarians scream “misunderstanding”. I don’t think anyone needs to worry about libertarians, because they have no idea who they are and are not united in their beliefs.

  6. Basically, all I read here is the same as a Catholic describing evolution has humans being born from monkey’s.

    Why is it non-Libertarian’s run around talking about what Libertarianism is? They’ve no clue, whatsoever, but I’m sure David Doyle thinks he is breaking new ground with his insight.

    If what you think about Libertarianism is wrong, and Libertarians are saying that, you can do one of 2 things:
    – Ignore actual Libertarian’s (so, those that say they are black when you say they are all white, just ignore them, they are lying, they are really white)
    – You can start re-evaluating what you define as “truth” and learn about it and actually learn the truth of what you condemn.

    Considering you already mocked Milton Friedman, which is basically an age old tactic of automatically discounting what someone said without even listening to it (which is based around ignoring people, thus, avoiding truth, not listening to what you don’t want to hear), you’ll go with the “ignore” option.

    Ignorance is not truth. But whatever, you believe this so continue on about evolution, now. I want to hear what else I believe.

  7. I feel sorry for the author of this article. Did no one ever tell you that masturbating in public is rude? This article is the verbal equivalent. Exposing your ignorance and getting your jollies from the exposure.

  8. If the government has too much power, then at any given moment I can ask for people to vote on something (20,000) pages long, and on page 1,776 it says that YOU must get fucked by a horse. The wording will be something along the lines of “The author reserves the right to command compensation of certain deeds mentioned in section 146.b., 8093.z., and 1540.x. of which may be performed by horses.” Because I bet that’s about how half the wording in Obamacare is.

    That’s democracy when the government has too much fucking power, you fucking racist idiot.

    Was that offensive enough for you? I hope it illustrated the point us libertarians argue.

    P.S. all of your arguments are against anarchy. Read the constitution; the guys who wrote it are libertarians.

  9. * On the definition of the free market: I would define the free market as the collection of all individuals and their voluntary transactions and associations. When people are over-taxed and over-regulated, as they are now in the West, the market is no longer free. A free market needs an effective justice system to function.

    * On the definition of personal property by Marx: it is not that libertarians are unaware of the works of Marx. It’s just that we don’t recognise them as being valid. If I hire someone to help me craft a wardrobe, and I pay the agreed wage, the result of the production is mine to enjoy.

    The person I employed has no claim on the product of his work because he has already agreed to sell his work in exchange of his wage. If people could not keep the goods produced by hiring other people, then they would just not hire anyone. Therefore, the opinions of Marx on property cannot be accepted.

    * On the water monopoly (or cartel): you seem to say that a free market naturally produces a concentration of power into a few hands. That is simply not the case. In a free market, we can expect an abundant resource to be distributed by many operators.

    In fact, you are accusing the free market of producing the very situation that central planning routinely produces. As an example, in the UK we have a state-sponsored monopoly on water. The consequence of this monopoly is that consumers cannot avoid being overcharged by switching to a cheaper provider.

    The very thing that you are afraid of, the hogging of a resource, is precisely what happens when government central planning is applied, as opposed to the handling of the resource by competitors in a free market.

    Which brings us to an important point – a free market should not be compared to a perfect world. A perfect world can never exist. Instead, a free market should be compared to the situation that prevails when government intervenes in a market.

    It is almost universally the case that people are made worse off by the intervention of government in the economy.

    * On wage negotiation: you seem to say that anyone who hires someone has to be rich. That is simply not the case. I consider myself to be poor and yet I do employ a couple of people directly from time to time.

    Therefore you cannot suggest that anyone who is in a position to hire someone, is likely to bully the person that is going to be hired.

    You suggest that wages are lower without the intervention of government and that this means that without the intervention of government, wages are not fair. First of all, it is not the wage that matters but the person’s purchasing power.

    Anyone would choose a low wage with *high* purchasing power, over a high wage with *low* purchasing power. My assertion is that without the intervention of government, the purchasing power of workers would be higher and continually increasing. By contrast, our economies are now producing a continual decline in purchasing power that impoverishes people.

    Secondly, you seem to suggest that any decline in wage is unfair. A fair wage, to me, is a wage that is agreed by both the employer and the employee. The level of the wage is not what matters. What matters is that there is an agreement between the two parties. That makes the wage ‘fair’.

    If my company tells me that they are going to cut my wage by 10%, I will not stop working for them, because I cannot find another company that will pay me more for a job that I love. So my wage is ‘fair’ as it is now, and it would still be ‘fair’ even if it was 10% lower.

    You say that without government intervention, children are forced to work. Have you never been forced to work by your parents? I have been and I don’t complain. It’s natural for children to do work to help their parents. No government rule is ever going to change that.

    Anyway, you would be wrong to assume that a libertarian society is a free-for-all where slavery is okay, because most libertarians support the existence of a justice system. A matter of child slavery, just like any other criminal matter, is a matter for judges and not a matter for politicians.

    * On food quality: you claim that laws are necessary to guarantee the quality of food. My assertion is that it is simply not the case. It is your responsibility as an individual to check the quality of the food that you consume and the credentials of the company that you are buying from.

    What makes you think that government bureaucrats are better than you at evaluating the quality of a food product? How do you think that people survived without the existence of a nanny state allowing people to turn off their brains?

    * On corporations: what libertarians despise is the support given by the state to large companies. If the functions of the state were limited to defence and the justice system, there would be no room for the distribution of subsidies to corporations.

    A libertarian is not asking for specific rules against a group or another. The fewer laws there are, the better for everyone. Also, it is not the size of a business that is a problem – only the fact that the state gives support to it.

    * On religious fanatics: what makes you think that a libertarian society can be ‘bought’ by a religious fanatic, while a socialistic society cannot? Again, a libertarian society should not be compared to a non-existent perfect world, but only to a socialistic society riddled with state intervention in the economy.

    You seem to think that a large government miraculously prevents powerful, evil people from hurting others. In fact, a large government is a wonderful tool for powerful, evil people. It concentrates power into the hands of a few people in a way that competing companies in a free market could not hope to.

    * On monopolies: you seem to think that we need the government to prevent monopolies, as if monopolies were a natural phenomenon. That is what the government wants you to believe, but it is not the reality.

    It is almost universally the case that monopolies arise thanks to the protection that government provides to a single operator. More government equals more monopolies supported by state licences.

    In a free market, a large company may enjoy a dominant position for as long as it offers a very low price for a product. But as soon as it tries increasing its price, competing companies will be created by others, thereby destroying the dominant company’s position.

    * On mercenaries: a libertarian opposes pointless wars, not specifically the use of mercenaries. Using mercenaries is no better or worse than using the country’s official soldiers. It is an identical waste of resources either way.

    Also, you suggest that a free market would not stop rich people from hiring thugs. Again, libertarians support the existence of a justice system. This would be a matter for judges, and not a matter for politicians. Why do you think that for every possible problem in society, politicians should write a new law?

    * On the right to be rich: libertarians do not support a right to be rich any more than a right to not be poor. Again, you seem to think that for every perceived problem in society, a new right should be created with its assorted laws. That is not the case.

    A libertarian only makes the claim that the best outcome for society as a whole is obtained when people are responsible for themselves, not when government is responsible for people.

  10. Hi! I know this is kinda off topic but I’d figured I’d ask.
    Would you be interested in exchanging links or maybe guesst
    authoring a blog article oor vice-versa? My site covers a
    lot of the same subjects as yours and I feel we could greatly
    benefit from each other.If you happen to be interested feel free to shoot
    me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you! Superb blog
    by the way!

  11. And not a single libertarian used a fact or a statistic to support a single thing they said…

    This is my favorite blabity nonsense quote here: “It is almost universally the case that people are made worse off by the intervention of government in the economy.”

  12. Pretty good description of what Libertarians are really all about. They remind me in many ways of a religious cult, they have their own version of reality. They are impossible to talk to, being enamored with a completely misguided sense of their own “brilliance” when in fact they are average individuals parroting their cult doctrine at best.

    You can almost always tell when they have written response in a forum because it goes on and on and on and usually ends up with labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a commie, a statist or just uninformed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s