One of my hobby horses is going after libertarians. There are several reasons for this, but lets just condense it to their philosophy has been (mis?)used to justify greed and plutocracy.
The criticism falls into three classes:
I've examined the philosophical contradictions before and won't repeat the arguments in detail. Here are the links:
Ayn Rand's Social Policy
It all boils down to a belief that one should be free to do whatever one wants without the interference of government, except that we need a strong military/police sector to ensure that no one takes my property. This is incoherent.
As for being anti-democratic, this follows directly for point one. A democracy decides what should be done by the tapping into the will of the majority. To the extent that this isn't done properly then the democracy is imperfect, but we are speaking of ideals. Let's take some simple example, like mandatory seat belts. After decades of experience it was decided that this would be a net benefit, because they saved lives and prevented harm to others as well. This is an impermissible imposition on libertarians. It is taking away their "freedom". What they really mean is that they don't want to have to obey laws they disagree with. This is anti-democratic.
Now on to my real point the connection between the super wealthy and libertarianism.
A couple of observations to put things in perspective. Libertarians are a fringe group, especially in economics, yet they get lots of public attention, why? Libertarianism is almost exclusively a US phenomena (there is a small group in the UK), again why? If its truths are so universal why isn't it being studied and adopted everywhere?
To give an example of what usually happens to fringe social and economic utopian ideas consider the case of Henry George. If you have never heard of him, Wikipedia will give you the highlights. At one time he was a famous social philosopher and gave speeches all over the US. There is still a society dedicated to promoting his work. Basically he wanted to replace all taxes with a single tax on land. The details aren't important, his obscurity is.
Modern libertarianism is usually traced back to Ayn Rand and her version called "Objectivism". I'm oversimplifying, but only true believers care about the various factions within the movement. She wrote two popular novels which detailed her philosophy. People who "get" her ideas either become life-long followers or grow out of it. So why has this movement persisted since the 1950's? As I always say, follow the money.
In this case the money comes from a group of super wealthy families some of whom are libertarians and some who are backing it for reasons to be discussed below. I want to highlight one of the most important of these backers - Charles Koch, a man you probably have never heard of. He and his brother control the largest privately owned company in the US - Koch Industries. The influence he has exerted is detailed in this collection of data that I've put together:
Charles Koch and Libertarianism.
Two of his most important activities have been the funding of the Cato Institute and in providing enough funding to turn the George Mason University economics department into a libertarian stronghold. When a fringe group is assured of generous funding they can do things to promote their cause that ordinary groups can't. They can hire big name thinkers, publish books and white papers, sponsor meetings and workshops, and hire an adequate PR staff.
The money enables the libertarian's ideas to be heard. Those who work at these institutions don't consider themselves as being under the thumb of those who are paying their way, but without the institutional structures made possible by this money they would not have any impact. Libertarians would be as likely to get jobs in big universities as Georgists.
Now why do the super wealthy back libertarianism? It provides an intellectual veneer which justifies greed. To quote Ayn Rand:
The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
Not to use their wealth and talent to better society, but "self-interest". This is the law of the jungle, not civilization. So the wealthy are behaving "rationally", they are buying intellectual cover which allows them to continue being plutocrats.
The libertarian intellectuals are also behaving "rationally". They are making a living doing the bidding of the super wealthy. Many probably think that they would be doing this in any case, but I think I've made it clear that without the money behind libertarianism they would be unlikely to find a job which allows them to do this.
I've been criticized because of my highlighting the $23 million given to GMU to support libertarian programs. "Rich people frequently give money to universities to support things they believe in". Establishing an endowed chair and then leaving it up to the staff to pick a suitable person to fill it is one thing, hand picking the faculty is quite another. That universities can behave in a craven manner is not a defense - "they all do it", is a schoolyard excuse. We will leave a discussion of the ethical lapses of universities to others to discuss.
Finally we come to the ordinary blokes who have bought into the philosophy. They are not behaving "rationally". They are neither wealthy, nor being paid to promote the ideas. They are ideologues. They are also deluded. The dream that everyone can become wealthy is an illusion. There is no commonality of interest between the wealthy and the rest of us. We need to work to live, they don't. We will need public services at various points in our lives, they don't. We need to have our infrastructure in good repair, this includes health, education and civil engineering. They can helicopter out, whenever things get too bad.
Many people think that social philosophy can be argued on an intellectual level and the best ideas will out, but in the US these days, the deck is stacked. One side is wielding ideas and the other is using money to promote their ideas, buying up media access, and politicians. It's not a fair fight and the sooner the left realizes this the better.
I think there needs to be a conscious effort whenever a partisan spokesmen is being engaged in a debate of policy to establish who is paying for their efforts. Organizations like SourceWatch are trying to do this, but everyone can pitch in if they have some additional information. I think you will find that very few on the right are untainted by the money of the plutocracy.
In a sense this is what scares them about the rise of the left-leaning blogosphere. In general no one is paying us for our efforts. If we can continue to avoid being corrupted by money we will win not only because our ideas are more just, but because we can't be bought.
© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Privacy Policy
Powered by Scoop.
Permalink | 41 comments