Alan Greenspan, close friend of Ayn Rand and an unabashed Objectivist, admitted in Congress that his ideology doesn't work and is responsible for the current economic meltdown. Video below the fold.
The problem with ideology is that people will tend to continue having faith in said ideology even in the face of evidence against it. The evidence has been mounting against libertarian-style, unregulated free-market capitalism for over 100 years now, and it's about time that honest ideologues are finally starting to recognise this.
I'm not saying that we should never try out any given ideology at all. Rather, in the words of Franklin Roosevelt, "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." Unregulated free-market capitalism has failed, and now is the time to admit it frankly and try something else.
But before we do, let us again consider the evidence; otherwise we might end up blindly flying over to the other extreme of the spectrum.
Most Libertarians and Objectivists I've spoken with seem to think that there are only two options: complete, unregulated capitalism or communism. There are several problems with this thinking, not least of which being that it presents a "false choice" logical fallacy. Even Adam Smith, in his Enlightenment-era book "The Wealth of Nations" argued for government interference with the economy. Most Libertarian ideologues who treat the book as if it were the Bible apparently have never read it, because they would most likely be aghast if they were presented with Smith's own endorsement of a progressive tax, as he did in Book V:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
Smith even advocated government intervention, ''especially when the object is to reduce poverty.'' Smith passionately argued, ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''
Not that we should accept that as true simply because "Smith said so". (That would be another logical fallacy; "appeal to authority".) But the key is that those ideas which he did advocate have quite a bit going for them. The idea that using government to fine-tune an economy is not Marxian communism; it's a solid idea backed up by mounds of evidence as to its efficacy, and I for one am glad that America is finally starting to see that.