The most common justification given for government intervention in private economic interchanges is the accusation of "market failure." Advocates posit that free markets sometimes produce outcomes that are undesirable or that underserve some members of a society, so it's OK for government to infringe on people's rights in order to make up for those failures.
Nothing in this world is perfect. As a former colleague would say years ago, there’s something wrong with everything (Milt Goodwin, 1985). The left is quick to point out the market’s imperfections as proof of its total failure. But their remedies are at least as imperfect, usually far more so, but those imperfections are never mentioned.
One of the most succinct and distilled explanations of critical theory I ever heard was this: it's about criticizing.
In tearing down what exists without offering an explicit alternative, a psychological ploy occurs: it invites the listener or reader to fall into the nirvana trap. It also muddles the distinction between anecdote and data. One sad story is often enough to convince people to do what logic and experience tells them won't work in the aggregate.
The historical record is pretty clear about what happens when reliance is placed on private charity. This historical record is also pretty clear about what happens when the government takes care of you cradle to grave through socialism.
Oh, I knew you were going to come in with that old private charity bit again.
What is the result of government socializing charity? The destruction of the family unit, especially in poorer communities. Massive, truly stupendously massive debt, and the associated destruction of wealth via inflation. A culture of permanent dependence. Barriers to emergence from poverty and dependence. Social breakdown via this "envy" culture and the legitimizing of theft by government.
How do you address the needs of those who are less well off? I understand that it may not be of interest to you since libertarianism denies that there is any obligation to help others leaving it up to personal choice.
Nice of you to answer your own question before giving me opportunity to do so.
But, your answer is also wrong. Libertarianism does not deny that obligation, it simply says that abandoning the individual desire to help others - and there is biological coding that drives that - to the government is immoral.
It is *your* approach that denies. As David Mamet noted, socialism is the abandonment of responsibility. You are not fulfilling the obligation by empowering someone to take from someone else to give to someone else. You are sating your own ego without actually putting your own efforts or the fruit of your own labor into the equation, other than as part of some larger collective (and very often, not even that, since a large chunk of people in this country pay a paltry portion of their income as taxes).
You are not getting the point of this post. There is no perfect answer, but the best answer, by far, is free markets and small government. Every other form produces poorer outcomes, and does a lot of unnecessary damage in the process. Get out of your "anecdote" form of thinking and look at the big picture for once. How much harm has your approach caused?
Your mistake is that you conflate "we" with collective action, and it comes across in every comment you make on this matter. So, naturally, you get pushback from libertarians - and probably more from objectivists, who are fare more attuned to that false conflation.
Meanwhile, the very best thing an individual can do to help others is to be successful. Success creates wealth, which creates opportunity for others, which makes society wealthier and raises all boats.
Many complain about income inequality in America, but you almost certainly saw my recent bit about how America's living standards have surpassed Europe's, where success is dampened by taxation, regulation, and cultural taboo. The socialists love to deride this, but it is a reality that a rising tide lifts all boats.
I have repeatedly been told by other libertarians that the only natural duty we have to others is the "negative" duty (or moral obligation) to abstain from violating their rights. You can understand my confusion.
My eyes were a little blurry this morning, and I read “Nirvana” as “Nvidia”, thinking you were talking about Trump’s latest scheme - imposing what amounts to a 15% export tariff on AI chips sold in China. Is it a market failure that our greatest comparative advantage is in advanced technology instead of Ford F-150s?
Government distortions take many forms. The size and shape of light trucks in America is a direct consequence of fuel efficiency standards and the labyrinth of rules that go with them.
As for chips? Better to sell one high value, high profit chip than a thousand low-cost, low-value, low-margin ones.
We're told that slippery slope arguments are inherently invalid. And yet, here we are, far down the slope.
Nothing in this world is perfect. As a former colleague would say years ago, there’s something wrong with everything (Milt Goodwin, 1985). The left is quick to point out the market’s imperfections as proof of its total failure. But their remedies are at least as imperfect, usually far more so, but those imperfections are never mentioned.
One of the most succinct and distilled explanations of critical theory I ever heard was this: it's about criticizing.
In tearing down what exists without offering an explicit alternative, a psychological ploy occurs: it invites the listener or reader to fall into the nirvana trap. It also muddles the distinction between anecdote and data. One sad story is often enough to convince people to do what logic and experience tells them won't work in the aggregate.
The historical record is pretty clear about what happens when reliance is placed on private charity. This historical record is also pretty clear about what happens when the government takes care of you cradle to grave through socialism.
Oh, I knew you were going to come in with that old private charity bit again.
What is the result of government socializing charity? The destruction of the family unit, especially in poorer communities. Massive, truly stupendously massive debt, and the associated destruction of wealth via inflation. A culture of permanent dependence. Barriers to emergence from poverty and dependence. Social breakdown via this "envy" culture and the legitimizing of theft by government.
Need I go on?
How do you address the needs of those who are less well off? I understand that it may not be of interest to you since libertarianism denies that there is any obligation to help others leaving it up to personal choice.
Nice of you to answer your own question before giving me opportunity to do so.
But, your answer is also wrong. Libertarianism does not deny that obligation, it simply says that abandoning the individual desire to help others - and there is biological coding that drives that - to the government is immoral.
It is *your* approach that denies. As David Mamet noted, socialism is the abandonment of responsibility. You are not fulfilling the obligation by empowering someone to take from someone else to give to someone else. You are sating your own ego without actually putting your own efforts or the fruit of your own labor into the equation, other than as part of some larger collective (and very often, not even that, since a large chunk of people in this country pay a paltry portion of their income as taxes).
You are not getting the point of this post. There is no perfect answer, but the best answer, by far, is free markets and small government. Every other form produces poorer outcomes, and does a lot of unnecessary damage in the process. Get out of your "anecdote" form of thinking and look at the big picture for once. How much harm has your approach caused?
I admit that I am puzzled because you are the first libertarian that I have met which says that we do have an obligation to help others.
Your mistake is that you conflate "we" with collective action, and it comes across in every comment you make on this matter. So, naturally, you get pushback from libertarians - and probably more from objectivists, who are fare more attuned to that false conflation.
Meanwhile, the very best thing an individual can do to help others is to be successful. Success creates wealth, which creates opportunity for others, which makes society wealthier and raises all boats.
Many complain about income inequality in America, but you almost certainly saw my recent bit about how America's living standards have surpassed Europe's, where success is dampened by taxation, regulation, and cultural taboo. The socialists love to deride this, but it is a reality that a rising tide lifts all boats.
I have repeatedly been told by other libertarians that the only natural duty we have to others is the "negative" duty (or moral obligation) to abstain from violating their rights. You can understand my confusion.
My eyes were a little blurry this morning, and I read “Nirvana” as “Nvidia”, thinking you were talking about Trump’s latest scheme - imposing what amounts to a 15% export tariff on AI chips sold in China. Is it a market failure that our greatest comparative advantage is in advanced technology instead of Ford F-150s?
Government distortions take many forms. The size and shape of light trucks in America is a direct consequence of fuel efficiency standards and the labyrinth of rules that go with them.
As for chips? Better to sell one high value, high profit chip than a thousand low-cost, low-value, low-margin ones.
Concocting a system that works better than a free market is still 30-40 years away 🤭