From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Libertarian myths.
Date: 14 Sep 1992 21:18:09 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

Libertarianism is much like creationism.  When presented unopposed, it is
initially persuasive.  But this is only because Libertarians deliberately
ignore vast numbers of facts in their quest to spread their dogmas.

These dogmas take the form of short, bumpersticker myths with about as much
honesty as former President Reagan's statement that "trees pollute".
Here's a collection that was kindly provided for us.

In article <1992Sep14.160546.2103@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> adams@bistro.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz) writes:
>Collective bargaining is fine.  But when the government creates laws that help
>the workers make demands against businesses (such as not allowing businesses to
>fire striking workers) then a fair price for labor cannot be determined.  

In this myth, Libertarians overlook several facts.  The most important,
and least obvious because it is a part of daily life, is that government
creates laws that give businesses their power.  These are the corporate laws
that allow creation and joint ownership of ficticious entities with specific
limits to liability by the owners.  These laws make it routine to construct
businesses that are much more powerful than the individual employees: indeed
they make it possible for businesses to grow almost without bounds.  This
often results in a monopoly supply of jobs of particular types within
particular job markets.

Now if I was to use the same argument made above, it is obvious that
monopolistic control of the job market means that a "fair price" (I assume
that means free market) for labor cannot be determined (because the free
market is predicated upon assumptions that monopoly cannot arise.)

Now even libertarians will recognize that workers have a right to free
association for any legal purpose.  What they will not acknowledge is that
employers effectively punish (or would punish) workers who associate for the
legal purpose of collective negotiation.  This punishment clearly conflicts
with the employees rights.  Laws concerning unions have one major way of
counteracting this: they eliminate the prisoner's dilemma that would enable
employers to discourage workers from exercising their right of association.
They eliminate the "fire the ringleaders, then the membership one by one
until the union dissolves" prisoner's dilemma that would otherwise be poised
by employers.  This protects the rights of the employees from a very real
punishment.

Now, this argument presumes that rights cannot be sold, i.e. that an employer
cannot demand abridgement of your rights as a condition of employment.
If libertarians want to allow that, then they will reinvent indentured
servitude and slavery.

>One argument appearing frequently in posts trying to refute libertarian
>philosophy is the claim that libertarians are selfish, uncaring, or that they
>defend "evil business".  First of all, many people are libertarians not because
>they are wealthy, but because someday they hope to be.  They don't want to live
>in a society which removes incentive to become rich.  This is also bad for
>society since creating a business is the best, legitimate means to becoming
>rich.  Businesses create jobs.  

Buried in here under the mom and apple pie platitudes (like "businesses create
jobs") is another classic myth: our current system removes incentives to
become rich.  Sorry, but the only way to do that is to make it impossible to
own businesses.  People work to become rich even in nations that have MUCH
higher tax burdens than in the USA.

>Secondly, besides the moral justification for libertarian philosophy
>(that it is NOT OK for a governent to coerce, using force,
>unreasonable taxes from its citizens and to create laws limiting
>individual freedom), libertarians believe that a strong economy is a
>better alternative than welfare.

Another myth.  A better alternative FOR WHOM?  If they claim to include
poor people, then this is the basic, discredited trickle-down fallacy.
And is it really an alternative?  Many socialist Western European nations
have both a strong economy and generous welfare.

>AND, the free market is the most
>effecient (albeit, not perfect) method for creating a strong economy.
>Most of the elevation in living standards throughout the world have
>been a direct result of technology created by free markets.  The
>alternative, socialism, has produced nothing but misery (with a few
>exceptions on a small scale).

More myths.  Strong economies have ALWAYS been created through intimate
collusion between government and large businesses controlling the production
and distribution of basic goods and services, directing the competition to
outside (export) markets.  In Japan, the zaibatsu and government collude to
fix prices: that's why rice and televisions cost more in Japan than in the USA.
Similarly in Germany, Taiwan, Singapore, and France.

This is a basic problem with laissez-faire economics in the USA: it's nice
to foster competition in our own community to gain the benefits of the free
market: but outside the community we control, we cannot play by the same
rules.  Essentially, this is the same problem a nation of pacifists would have.
This principle can be extended to refute many of the libertarian party's
goals: unilateral niceties are an invitation for the nice guy to finish last.

>Finally, in practical terms, even if you thought it was OK for the
>government to use force (via the IRS) against its citizens, and that we should
>have the government fix all social problems, it's hopeless.

Here's another allusion to the most prevalent libertarian myth: that the
government is out to coerce you by force into paying taxes.  This myth
totally ignores the contractual nature of the relationship between citizen
and state.  The contract is published: read the laws.  If you want to
terminate the contract, take citizenship in another country.

For example, if you were born in an apartment with an indefinite lease, and
when you were grown, your parents moved out leaving you as sole occupant,
you wouldn't expect to live there for free, would you?  A landlord would kick
you out: the US government hasn't that choice (it would be unconstitutional)
and thus needs other ways of collecting.

>The government is
>filled with power hungry, stupid bureaucrats, who implement ineffective,
>inefficient, well-intentioned but completely misdirected programs.

This is a common libertarian charicature.  Ignore everything good that a
government could have done, and spotlight only exceptional excesses.
As somebody who's spent 15 years working for corporations, I don't think
business is much better than government.  I've seen all of the above and
more.  And, as in government, the dross does not characterize the whole.

>Why would
>you trust a centralized govenment with no market feedback (other than from
>special interest groups) to make decisions for individuals or businesses.
>People are much better positioned to decide what to do with their money.

This invokes at least two common libertarian myths.  The first is the old
"there's no cost involved in making an informed choice" myth, born of
an idealized model of a free market where information is free.  For example,
if I'm in a drugstore, I want to know that over the counter medications
are pretty safe, what the effective ingredients are, that they are of
acceptable quality, etc.  The free market did not provide this information
until it was mandated by the government.  Now I can choose a generic product,
a store brand, or whatever is cheapest and know I get the same effect safely,
without having to spend the time to find out about the company's record.
Making drugs into comodities increases competition and lowers prices.

The other myth is that the market can function well independently of hostile
goverment.  Remember the Russian grain purchases of ten or 15 years ago?
The price of domestic grain skyrocketed after the Soviets purchased vast
quantities cheaply in many independent sales.  Markets are reactive: they
cannot deal effectively with manipulation.  Governments can provide
stability in markets.

>Besides, just because person 1 want the government to do one thing with
>person 2's money, what makes you think everyone else wants the money spent
>that way.

And finally, the myth that everybody should be able to be completely
satisfied by everything that a government does.  This ignores the clear
fact that under a libertarian system, people would be unhappy about
other things, and a substantial number would want the old system back.

Mike Huben


"Utopias now appear much more realizable than one used to think.  We are now
faced with a different new worry: How to prevent their realization."
						Nicolas Berdiaeff