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