In recent years, libertarianism has been gaining much support throughout the nation. Many of their objectives are very noble-trying to reduce military spending, ending a needless and bloody war on drugs, reducing the debt, and ending unproductive bureaucracy and waste. However, there is a certain fantasy surrounding libertarianism- that if the government would just get out of the economy everything would be nice and rosy. The problem is that this system has already been tried and found to be wanting.

Now, I know those who support libertarian ideas will say that we never truly had libertarianism, and they might have some truth to this claim. However, we do have a picture of what a libertarian society would look like from the Gilded Age. There are few government regulations in the workplace, so workers get treated like animals. There is no quality public education system; so many children have to go to the factories to work. There are next to no environmental or food regulations, and so the environment and health of the nation suffer greatly as a result.

Another problem with libertarianism is that those who preach it cannot give one solid example of it working in the real world. Those who claim the positives of a more welfare state or socialist system can give the examples of Denmark, Finland, or Norway, which have some of the highest standards of living in the world. What examples can libertarians give? The only examples of societies that were close to libertarianism were not very good places for the majority of the populous. We could give the example of the U.S. in the 1800s or Latin American countries.

Another problem with libertarians is that those who push this economic idea are often led by ideologues and right wing think tanks rather than responsible economists. Why? Because any responsible economist realizes that libertarianism would be disastrous for the masses and ultimately bad for the overall society. After all, it was a lack of government regulation that led us to so much of the current mess we are in. Libertarianism has been pushed by the likes of past ideologues such as Ayn Rand, and modern ideologues like Peter Schiff. Libertarianism may look great on paper, but in reality, it would be disastrous, with a few people controlling everything and the masses struggling to merely  survive.

Bookmark to:

It sounds so absurd that is hard to believe it really happened- a house burned to the ground in rural Tennessee because the owners had failed to pay their “subscription fee”. The firefighters were in front of the house with all the equipment needed to put out the fire, but instead just watched it burn. They made sure they contained the fire, so it did not spread to the neighbors who had a “subscription.” The homeowners begged the firefighters and offered to give whatever money necessary, but it was to no avail.

People are going to come out and say that this is just an isolated incident; however, it seems to me to be part of a scary trend towards privatization and lack of government responsibility towards the common good. Let’s just take the issue of healthcare for example….why do people in the U.S. still pay highly exaggerated fees for medical care and still face possible denial for pre-existing conditions? It is because there is no public system or even public insurance option to look out for the common good. Living in a country with a public health system (Costa Rica), I have seen how it had made competition for even the private health care-so the rates are a little more sane.

Another example is the current move by some conservative politicians to privatize Social Security- another very dangerous idea. What happens when the privatized investments crash (like in the last financial crisis)? What is going to happen to the poor grandmother who is counting on the small Social Security check to make ends meet? Those concerns never seem to be brought up by the small government individuals who push for these programs privatization.

Where does privatization lead? Is this “opt-in” fire department service going to become more common in order to keep taxes lower? Are we going to have a privatized police force that will only respond to the needs of those who are willing or able to pay? Is education going to only be an option for the wealthy? Are we going to have to slash even more social services and public jobs in order to let the Billionaires keep their tax cuts? Libertarianism and “keeping a small government” sounds great in theory, but a privatization of the aspects of society that should be public services is something that is extremely detrimental to society. When does Libertarianism simply become a lack of social responsibility? When does individualism and liberty become smokescreens for selfishness? Before we go further down this road of expanding privatization of the public sector, we should look at events such as this outrageous lack of responsibility by the fire department and realize that is a path we need to be careful to avoid.

To read more about this story you can go to

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/04/libertarian_fire_department

Bookmark to:

Rand Paul has been under fire this last week for comments he made in regard to the flawed nature of the Civil Rights legislation-because it forces businesses not to discriminate. While this is certainly regressive thinking and unfortunate, what is more dangerous are the economic libertarian views of Paul. It seems that since the election of Obama, Libertarianism has been on the rise in the United States. While some may see this as only reactionary (libertarianism seemed to be pretty low in the Bush years), it is starting to grow great support under groups like the Tea Party.

What I think these people don’t realize is that we already had a near Libertarian system in the past. This isn’t some new or novel idea. And guess what? Libertarianism was great for the top 2%, but not so great for the bottom 90%. When I think of Libertarianism, I think of the days of the Industrial Revolution-where the government didn’t get involved at all in regulation or the economy. The Rockefellers and Carnegies made it big, but the average worker had to work up to 80 hours a week and still barely kept his family afloat. Women and children were paid even lower wages. Of course, if they get sick-tough luck. There was no disability insurance or health subsidies. I think of the days of Herbert Hoover, when the Great Depression hit he did barely anything, because he thought it wasn’t the governments job to give support. Of course, he got the shantytowns (Hoovervilles) named after his honor, and lost the Presidency in one of the biggest landslides in history (1932).

There are some aspects of Libertarianism that could be good for the country-decriminalizing drug users, legalization of marijuana, less military spending, etc. However, the overall idea of little to no government in the economy is a recipe for a huge income disparity where a few have everything and the majority of people have nothing. It is a plan for the rich. Unfortunately, the middle class followers of Libertarianism would find themselves in an extremely tough situation if the reforms they are fighting for were actually passed.

Bookmark to: