The Fairy Tale of Laissez-faire

[Benos145]

Something I have noticed about 'libertarians' and 'conservatives' (note they are becoming all but indistinguishable these days) in America is their blatant reactionism. They elevate American historical figures to the status of heroes, they intentionally give people the impression that these figures were part of an unattainable past. In other words, the history-as-myth method teaches people that America's greatest days are behind it, and the only way for America to get 'better' is by 'reverting' to some mythical-pre-age of American libertarian utopia, lost in the grains of time ages ago....:laugh:

Furthermore they are always dishonest about historical controversies and the flaws of America's historical figures.

I've noticed that libertarians are always referring to the 'founding fathers' and the glorious days of 'freedom' that America had after the it's separation from Great Britain, always posting those paintings of the first Congress thing, and treating them in a deified way.

They almost categorically reject 'primary sources' as a way of looking at history, and fail to grasp that when America's economy was most 'Laissez-faire' was when inequality, poverty and ignorance was most rife. They almost sound like fascists glorifying the 'traditional values' of our feudal past, and it's medieval 'heroes'. This is all opposed to a grassroots Marxist view of history, which looks at class reality as the basis for historical development

[Winter]

I agree.

I think when alot of people hear the words "With Liberty and Justice for all" they fail to remember what happened to all the non-white males. Native Americans, Africans, and women of any race, were nothing but an ends to a mean to society as a whole. It was only after many mass movements that the government was forced to reconize the equality of all, regardless of race and gender.

[IcarusAngel]

You're just noticing the simple facts of reality unaccompanied by libertarian and capitalist propaganda, my friend.

Libertarians, in the US at least, are some of the biggest liars and frauds in political history. They'll lie about anything. I think a lot of non-US citizens or people just becoming acquainted with American Libertarians don't realize how bad they are.

And yah, they do tend to elevate the white supremacists and elitists who founded America to sainthood. Not to say the American founders weren't on point on a few things, or brilliant politically, or interesting in their writings, but they were by no means political gods to follow. And Libertarians do lie about history as well.

Another thing they do is claim that capitalism is as natural as a flower growing and blossoming when accompanied by water and sun light. When you ask for evidence, they give you absurd "self-proving axioms" and dubious anthropological scholarship.

They also claim capitalism has "won" because of the success of the West, while attributing America's moral failures to its "socialism," all while claiming an "end of history" theory for the capitalist system because of advancements. But the advancements of society were done by science (which is anti-capitalist in practice), corporations are supported by the government, and many prosperous and inventive systems existed in history far longer than capitalism before they were destoryed by human progress.

They also like baptize anybody who has said anything remotely anti-government as being "libertarian" of that person was famous: Einstein, Vonnegut, Lao-Tzu, Buddha, Jesus Christ, the Christian God, Orwell, and so on, have all been claimed to be "libertarians" in one form or another.

This is because they assume if you're for, say, civil liberties, it means you're a libertarian, even though broadening and widening civil liberties may mean to destroy capitalism and property to you. Libertarians are very superficial.

It's a good first tip to realize what Libertarians are -- promoters of hundreds of privatized tyrannies.

[LSD]

The above are 100% right. Libertarianism is a house of cards, but it's a very neatly organized house of cards which, if you accept its premises, actually makes a lot of sense.

Like with primativism, you have to attack the practical results that enacting their theory would produce.

Actually, libertarianism shares a lot with primitivism. In fact it's actually kind of half-hearted primitivism, an attempt to undo 7000 years of civilization without actually giving up all the stuff we've gotten out of it. It's a hypocritical and deeply confused ideology and one with absolutely no shot of ever manifesting in a real sense ...but it does read well.

And, in the end, that's what libertarianism's really got going for it, brilliant marketing. Its theoretical vapidity is masked by the emotional chord that it so carefully strikes.

Rightists are "religious gaybashing warmongers", leftists are "big government treehuggers", libertarians are ...neither. :)


We've all gotten so used to thinking in caricatures that any model which defies them, even superficially, comes across as iconoclastic. But libertarianism doesn't smash any idols, it just lines them up differently so you don't notice nothing's changed. So the way to discredit it isn't to attack the words it uses -- that kind of terminological battle can only take you so far. You have to reveal the ideology for the sham that it is.

And, again, the best way to do that is to reveal the absurdities that would occur should libertarianism ever manifest, the simpler the better.

And when it comes to "freedom", just remind people that they don't want absolute freedom. Absolute freedom would leave the friendly rapist down the street free to molest and strangle them in their sleep.

Most people intuitively realize that the government (as bad as it is) is not responsible for all their woes and that letting rich people do whatever they want it not a particularly good idea.

All you've got to do is wipe away all the gloss and the glaring impracticality of the ideology speaks for itself.

[YadaRanger]

Ron Paul over Thomas Paine and John Dewey? WTF??

there are soooo many great American intellectuals that stayed true the the revolution even after it was "over". By the time Paine died, everyone in 3 country's hated him because he never stoped fighting. You guys should check out the intro to common sense: "of which class, regardless of party, is the author."

And what REALLY HEATS ME UP. Is how the American Libertarian-Right always says "go back to the constitution, the constitution....blah blah blah." I question whether they have ever read it. Where does the constitution advocate harsh, unchecked, free-market capitalism and wage-labor oppression?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

My final question is this, does INSURING domestic Tranquility and PROMOTING the GENERAL welfare not call for equality and somewhere close to an equal rise in the standard of living? Does the common defense not include defense against poverty and health care? Thomas Paine calls government a necessary evil. When the "necessary evil" not only does not defend the 85% of this country from exploitation, but subsidizes the 15% of the country who are the exploiters, then that evil is no longer necessary, but it adds on the the problem which is the class divide and becomes simply "evil".

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Left-libertarians make sense.

Right-libertarians fall into a religious claptrap about Adam Smith without realizing just what most classical liberals advocated. Not to mention the Libertarian Party is run by ultra-reactionary pricks who couldn't give a damn about reproductive rights, or homosexuals, or the poor - so long as they're attacked on a local level.

Libertarians can't get it over their heads that dramatic wealth inequality creates social unrest. Abstract notions of right and wrong (which aren't built on much) don't correlate to sound judgment. Diverting all questions to the free market seems rather trivial: the free market didn't cope with private regulation, what if it doesn't today? And if the market can improve, why can't public services?

[IcarusAngel]

Ron Paul over Thomas Paine and John Dewey? WTF??

Yes, they generally prefer their own tyrants over even people who are closer to the beliefs of the American revolution than they are. All tyrannical systems misuse the beliefs of other systems to get support. The Fascists did this.

The dictator in Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here uses Emma Goldman in his speeches.


My final question is this, does INSURING domestic Tranquility and PROMOTING the GENERAL welfare not call for equality and somewhere close to an equal rise in the standard of living? Does the common defense not include defense against poverty and health care? Thomas Paine calls government a necessary evil. When the "necessary evil" not only does not defend the 85% of this country from exploitation, but subsidizes the 15% of the country who are the exploiters, then that evil is no longer necessary, but it adds on the the problem which is the class divide and becomes simply "evil".

Libertarians generally do not take the DoI and the other writings of the founders in context. Thomas Jefferson opposed the federal government because he was afraid it would industrialize the country and weaken local communities and farmers, and thus weakening democracy as the people would have less power.

It was not about supporting the tyranny of laissez-faire.

However, the founders and the constitution had plenty of problems in and of themselves and have already been transgressed at this point. We need to be moving on.

[Bud Struggle]

Left-libertarians make sense.

Right-libertarians fall into a religious claptrap about Adam Smith without realizing just what most classical liberals advocated. Not to mention the Libertarian Party is run by ultra-reactionary pricks who couldn't give a damn about reproductive rights, or homosexuals, or the poor - so long as they're attacked on a local level.

Libertarians can't get it over their heads that dramatic wealth inequality creates social unrest. Abstract notions of right and wrong (which aren't built on much) don't correlate to sound judgment. Diverting all questions to the free market seems rather trivial: the free market didn't cope with private regulation, what if it doesn't today? And if the market can improve, why can't public services?

Without getting picky--I pretty much agree with most of what you say.