I have an honest question for libertarians with a small "L"...

[steve2470]

How do you reconcile "small government" with human needs ? This is a serious question. I will not flame you for your serious answer. I am trying to learn. Yes, I could spend hours on the internet researching, but I think one or two good paragraphs from a small "L" libertarian could help me understand. Thank you for your time in advance.

[YOY]

1. Read "Atlas Shrugged"

It pretty much sums up the why for them. One of the big "L"s explained that to me.

No, I am neither a big nor a small "L" and do not share their philosophy.

[treestar]

2. They have this total faith in capitalism

They really think that everyone will be fine if capitalism is left alone.

When you point out the Depression of the 30s, they have an answer to the effect that it was caused by previous government interference with the economy. The creation of the Federal Reserve and going off of the gold standard really bothers them a lot, as does the income tax. So those things, taking place before the Depression, were causes of it.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. No one should have total faith in anything

[Mythsaje]

4. I think the misconception is that left "little L" libertarians and big L libertarians

share much at all in common. We don't. Most left "little L" libertarians aren't so concerned with the growth of government as much as with the growth of mind-numbing, micro-managing rules and laws that hem in the choices and behaviors of individual citizens. We generally oppose the notion of "zero tolerance," and the like, seeing such absolutes as being detrimental in the long run because of the likelihood of misuse and misapplication. We generally also oppose such boondoggles as the drug war as being rife for abuse in terms of civil liberties and freedom of expression.

When responses to certain behaviors become institutionalized rather than dealt with on an individual basis, inherent social inertia makes challenging assumptions about their value nearly impossible. As an example, the drug war, as it stands, has produced NO measurable positive results and considerable negative results and, yet, has been continued through both Republican and Democratic administrations with no sign of reconsideration or repeal.

When someone more authoritarian proposes "there ought to be a law," a left libertarian may ask "what is the benefit analysis of this rule, law, policy? Is it cost effective? What are the possible long term detrimental effects to society and civil liberties?"

We tend to think it's irresponsible NOT to consider these details when it's so often proved that implementing such things without serious discussion ends up being far more damaging in the long run than the problem they were allegedly created to solve.

[backscatter712]

6. Good answer - I'll add why I'm no longer a big-L Libertarian.

It just comes down to the question of the fundamental function of government. To me, it's pretty well summed up in the preamble to the Constitution, and does among other things, providing for the general welfare of the populace.

In order to keep the populace happy, one of the things that should be the goal of government is to maximize liberty. Back in my libertarian days, I would have suggested that the best way to do that is to reduce government to the bare minimum, or as anarchists would have it, reduce to no government whatsoever. No government, no nasty authority figures telling you what to do, demanding you pay taxes, sounds great right?

Except our society is full of sharks. Crooks, thieves, psychopaths, monopolists, fraudsters, etc. There have to be rules in place to keep the little guys from being eaten alive. The invisible hand the libertarians are a fan of turns into a crushing fist that targets everyone who isn't trying to lie, cheat and steal. Government isn't the only entity that destroys liberty. Powerful, moneyed individuals, and amoral corporations do far more damage to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness than government most of the time. That's why we have government - set up some rules, to manage things that can't really be trusted to be left in the hands of private groups, to try to make things fair, and to give everyone, including the least of us, a fair shake. That's why we have social security, public schools, military, regulatory agencies, etc. That's why we should have universal public health care - it's not fair to force someone who's sick to sell his house to get treatment. Government and the programs as described are there to make sure everyone has a fair chance to be able to live decently - gives everyone the chance to go to school, gives a hand up if they can't find a job because the economy's crappy, provides some health care so the sick and disabled can keep going, and enforces laws to keep us from getting fleeced. Of course, in order to pay for that, there has to be taxes. They suck, but I can't think of any other way to pay for these things, so taxes are there to try to spread the load equally.

So we have to have laws, taxes, and so on to make society function. We're ironically more free, when these things are in place and working. I'm with the libertarians when it comes to crap like zero-tolerance and the drug war - laws like that aren't really serving the purpose of promoting the public good. Laws against marijuana attack our freedoms, but don't really do much to promote public health - they just create a system where people are imprisoned, and lots of other people act as predators by making money from the fact these people are being put in prison. Legalize marijuana, put treatment programs into place to deal with addiction and its related problems, and the result will be cheaper as far as taxpayer money goes, do more to promote public health, and be less damaging to liberties.

I still consider myself to be a small-l libertarian, but I think the best way to accomplish that is to pursue progressive policies.

[Mythsaje]

7. Sounds like we're more or less on the same page...

The issue I have with big "L" libertarians, in general, is the assumption that business is any more benevolent a master than government is or can be. I think the opposite is most likely true. Wealth equals power and part of government's job is to level the playing field to minimize the way that power runs rough-shod over those with less power.

[OHdem10]

5. I am not a libertarian but flirted with it in my youth.

How do you reconcile small gov. with human needs.

The best way I can explain their position is:

First you have to accept that they have an entirely different
world view. The short answer--they do not in any way try to
reconcile the two. The idea of a common good is not part of
their lexicaon. A strict libertarian (note liberty) believes
in the old "rugged individualism". Each person has a responsibilty
to make himself the best he can be. Each person has right to
make as much money as he wishes and there should be little
interference from anyone or any entity(gov). To them Liberty
means ability to earn and spend your own money. This is why
jyou hear them often say "Abolish the IRS". Each Family is responsible
for themselves. No one owes them anything.

In their "perfect world" Churches and Charitable Organizations
would help the poor. This is not a function of government.
Libertarians are not heartless. They do contribute to charity,etc.
They do this on their own volition as they see it. They are
not coerced. If some do not wish to do this, that is ok to.

Their government: Pres Congress, Defense Dept, Small State
Dept. Each state would run their own affairs.

There are Conservative Republicans who hold similar views
maybe not as dogmatic. Remember when Newt Gingrich and Tom
DeLay, had dreams of abolishing Dept of ED. Commerce, etc.

Liberals come at things from a completely different world
view. This is why it is important for Liberals to have
philosophy and some basic principles to prepare us to
fight on an even playing field. Our arguments would win.
Conservatives in our own party often hold us back.

The difference is world view. Rugged Individualism, Each for
himself with no obligation for others.

Versus, Working for the common good in an effort to lift everyone
a little at least.

[eggman67]

10. Great post.

Particulary this part:

In their "perfect world" Churches and Charitable Organizations
would help the poor. This is not a function of government.
Libertarians are not heartless. They do contribute to charity,etc.
They do this on their own volition as they see it. They are
not coerced. If some do not wish to do this, that is ok to.

One of the great misconceptions about libertarians is that they're heartless bastards. As you said this is not the case. They sincerely believe that the poor would be better off in the world you described. It is the belief of all the libertarians I know that the government programs do far more harm to those they purport to serve than good. Whether or not that's the case is the subject for debate, but their motivations are not born out of heartlessness.

[Zavulon]

8. From my understanding, it goes like this:

"Capitalism is more efficient and more trustworthy than government."

Whether that's true or not is subject to individual interpretation, but those who believe it certainly have enough points on their side to at least present a coherent argument. Capitalism generally trucks along as it will, but government can be taken over by the insane fuckwads who are running things now.

It largely depends on who's running the show, I suppose. Libertarians had a less efficient argument in 1996 than in 2006, for example.

For my part, I have little if any trust in either as a whole. Both can be great for society if held in check, but if either is left to run amok society would suffer horribly. Both are out of control right now, as a matter of fact.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. And right-wing and pseudo-left (DLC, New Labour) politicians reinforce

the idea that government is bad, as Barbara Ehrenreich has noted, by cutting back on the beneficial aspects of government (health and safety laws, environmental protection, all the aspects of the social safety net, guarantees of civil liberties) and increasing the coercive aspects of government, such as zero tolerance laws, mandatory prison sentences, looking the other way at police brutality, spying on civilians, putting on a big show of screening everyone at airports, high tax rates on the middle class but not on the rich, and waging wars.

This approach to government, which is at work to a certain extent here in Japan, too, is probably the biggest recruiting tool the Libertarian party ever had.

That may well be the ultimate purpose of removing the beneficial aspects of government and emphasizing the repressive aspects, because the America envisioned by the Libertarian Party would be a nineteenth century robber baron's wet dream.

[backscatter712]

11. My response to the invisible hand argument.

The Invisible Hand as Adam Smith envisions, only works correctly if you make a couple assumptions.

1. It makes the assumption that everything's transparent - that all parties in the market have accurate and complete knowledge on the products being bought and sold, that way the buyers and sellers can settle on a fair price that accurately reflect the product's value. The real world isn't like that - there's toys with lead paint, that diminish the value of the toys. Scratch that, the lead paint reduces the toy's value to nothing, because nobody in their right mind would let their child play with toys with lead paint. But the Chinese manufacturers and the American retailers aren't telling us that. So the consumer gets screwed. Maybe eventually, the invisible hand will lay the smackdown on manufacturers that put lead paint on toys as consumers opt for lead-free toys instead, but without regulation, that process takes way too long, and kids get hurt.

2. It assumes that only the buyers and sellers matter. It doesn't put into account effects on third parties, just effects on buyers and sellers. Sure the oil company and the car owner think they're getting something close to fair value when money is exchanged for gasoline. But that value doesn't take into effects on people killed, hurt and displaced by wars over oil, or the costs of the damage to the environment from CO2 emissions, oil spills, etc. The individual buying the gasoline, and the oil company are getting what they think is a fair trade, but everyone else is being screwed.

3. It assumes that there is plenty of competition between sellers, and competition between buyers, which drives prices to a relatively fair equilibrium. But what happens if there's only one sellers? A monopoly? By hook or crook, this seller drove his competitors out of business. As Microsoft demonstrates, that gives the seller a tremendous amount of abusable power. The monopolist can do things like restricting supply to drive up prices, making unfair demands of buyers, etc. And again, normal people get screwed.

4. It assumes that there is a relatively equal balance of power between buyer and seller. That's almost never the case. In today's world, there are always power-inbalances, and where there are those imbalances, people are going to throw their weight around. Hardly anyone has the resources to take on the phone company, so cell phone providers get away with sticking their customers with onerous contracts, termination fees, etc. Again, people get screwed.

That's why a truly free and fair market needs regulation.