Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism as ideology (reply to Richard C.) Message-ID: <517@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 19:03:10 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.517 Posted: Fri Mar 8 19:03:10 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 05:08:46 EST References: <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <5308@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: /usr/exptools/lib/netnews/myorg Lines: 51 Barry Fagin posted a very long article defending libertarians from the following charge: > In article <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > > > >... the motivation [of libertarians] is to justify the existing order > >of society, > Barry's article went on to cite various reforms to the existing society which libertarians generally support. I think that Barry is right in saying that libertarians are not primarily motivated by a desire to justify the existing order. I think the motivation for libertarians is primarily ideological. But the question is, what is the source of their ideology? Libertarian ideology is simply taking to the extreme the arguments that have been couched in favor of the status quo by business interests. Libertarians have heard so often since their childhood in our society about the wonders and magic of the "free market" that they have taken these pronouncements as articles of faith. It seems to me that many libertarians do not really understand the economic theory that was used by Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Marshall to justify Capitalism. But they do know that the "invisible hand" which solves all problems at a stroke sounds very appealing. And of course it is a viewpoint which easily finds favor and $$$$ from the businessmen who do benefit disproportionately from the current distribution of wealth and income. Since the libertarians on the net have been pressed to justify inequalities in wealth and income which have nothing to do with a person's own labor they have hedged by trying to find some criteria to legitimize wealth. By doing so they have sacrificed their original principles that property is sacred. The reason some of the libertarians have been willing to do this is that in all likelihood they had never really considered the problem. It has forced them to think about issues that they had never previously considered. Yet there are still many problems with assuming that the free market will solve all problems that they have generally refused to consider. They refuse to admit to any problem with monopoly or oligopoly power. They refuse to admit that the cobweb effect could actually occur or wish it away by contradicting the very fundamental assumptions of the free market. They refuse to see the free rider problem- that there *are* certain public goods which can only be sustained by the public or else no individual will be willing to pay the resources that should optimally be allocated to such goods. These are not *Marxist* problems with free markets under certain conditions: they are problems pointed out by Capitalist economists themselves. While I support democratic socialism that does not mean I am blind to its potential problems or paradoxes. I only wish that libertarians could be as critical of their own blind ideology. tim sevener whuxl!orb