…and this is a 
Miéville takes a whack at the Libertarians
Category: Politics
Posted on: October 26, 2007 1:00 AM, by PZ Myers
My least favorite political/economic group is the Libertarians, so it is a wonderfully pleasant experience to watch as China Miéville takes a sharp and dismissive rhetorical blade to a Libertarian pipe-dream. He's specifically criticizing something called the Freedom Ship, a gigantic free-floating escapist fantasy for Libertarians, in which they cruise the seas with their own closed colony of warriors for greed.
Libertarianism is by no means a unified movement. As many of its advocates proudly stress, it comprises a taxonomy of bickering branches--minarchists, objectivists, paleo- and neolibertarians, agorists, et various al.--just like a real social theory. Claiming a lineage with post-Enlightenment classical liberalism, as well as in some cases with the resoundingly portentous blatherings of Ayn Rand, all of its variants are characterized, to differing degrees, by fervent, even cultish, faith in what is quaintly termed the "free" market, and extreme antipathy to that vaguely conceived bogeyman, "the state," with its regulatory and fiscal powers.
Above all, they recast their most banal avarice--the disinclination to pay tax--as a principled blow for political freedom. Not content with existing offshore tax shelters, multimillionaires and property developers have aspired to build their own. For each such rare project that sees (usually brief) life, there are many unfettered by actual existence, such as Laissez-Faire City, a proposed offshore tax haven inspired by a particularly crass and gung-ho libertarianism, that generated press interest in the mid-'90s only to collapse in infighting and bad blood; or New Utopia, an intended sea-based libertarian micro-nation in the Caribbean that degenerated with breathtaking predictability into nonexistence and scandal.
The summary is particularly sweet.
It is a small schadenfreude to know that these dreams will never come true. There are dangerous enemies, and then there are jokes of history. The libertarian seasteaders are a joke. The pitiful, incoherent and cowardly utopia they pine for is a spoilt child's autarky, an imperialism of outsourcing, a very petty fascism played as maritime farce: Pinochet of Penzance.
Well said — I think the institutionalized selfishness, petty small-mindedness, and bourgeois values run amuck of the libertarians represent the worst of America — and that finding common cause, supporting both social and economic equality, and striving for a real community of liberty (not that penny-pinching masquerading as freedom that libertarians espouse) represent the best.
(via Amardeep Singh)
Politics
Comments
I think the institutionalized selfishness, petty small-mindedness, and bourgeois values run amuck of the libertarians represent the worst of America --
cue cale in 3..2..1...
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 26, 2007 1:07 AM
While I pretty much disagree with the entire economic libertarian ideal, I do find that some of their ideas concerning government have merit. I like the fact that they pretty much think that you should be free to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others ideal. I realize that many people profess such an ideal, but few really seem to mean it like they do.
Of course its all kind of ruined by the fact that one of the things they have no problem with is the whole take as much as you can get regardless of whether you need it or not, and damn the rest of you ethic, which is then defended on some kind of moral principle of you deserve what you work for crap.
Posted by: Robert | October 26, 2007 1:17 AM
Still, I've got to admit that making a grab for Garifuna land in the name of property rights is a tour de force of compartmentalization.
Posted by: thalarctos | October 26, 2007 1:21 AM
I'll take libertarians seriously when Eve Online stops sucking.
Posted by: Dustin | October 26, 2007 1:24 AM
Robert, I agree with you. I've never liked the party because of their horrid economic ideals. Although, I do tend to gravitate more towards civil libertarianism. My right to freedom is worth my paying for yours in the medical arena for example. I won't legislate against red meat even if it causes heart cancer and I pull some of the medical care slack, because (in the most selfish sense) maybe I don't want my enjoyment of bars and beer to get revoked because it infringes upon someone elses pocket book. We all have some joy that could be revoked through the cry of "it costs me money". Our liberties should be worth what we pick up in extra costs from mistakes and human fallibility, ya know?
Posted by: Michael X | October 26, 2007 1:33 AM
PZ, do you actually know any libertarians?
Most of the ones I know (including myself) are:
- themselves poor
- contribute to charities
- are pro-choice (on everything)
- are non-interventionists
- want to contribute to social and economic equality on their own terms, not on those of a Bush or a Clinton or some other Christian president.
...and yet libertarians are your least favorite group. I guess that means that you don't have much confidence in your ability to convince people through words rather than at the point of a gun. That's unfortunate.
Posted by: Heterocronie | October 26, 2007 1:40 AM
Saying "I'm a libertarian" is an even surer way to suspend any sense of respect than saying "the Bible is inerrant" in my (silly) little book, since it takes away the strong possibility that the utterer was brainwashed by his family or familiars.
Self-anointed libertarians, the ones who aren't openly and proudly LT (Looney-Toons), are sort of like the Christian Scientists of the political world here in the USA, but much more boorishly loud and unable to exhibit the faith needed to adhere to any of their own, generally faux-Alpha male, preachings, if there is some profit to be made.
Next to Bushites, they are the trash a society like ours is doomed to generate, and which the clever among us must find a purpose for.
Posted by: darwinfinch | October 26, 2007 1:41 AM
Calling oneself "libertarian" or espousing any of the beliefs associted with said label is the height of political laziness. It's "Can't we all just get along?" meets "If I close my eyes maybe it will go away." I especially like the "spoiled child" comparison. Every libertarian I've ever met is living in their own deluded fantasy world.
Posted by: darrell | October 26, 2007 1:48 AM
EVE Online is an awesome game, but only if you know lots of other people playing it and join/form a corporation.
Speaking of games and libertarianism, the recent game Bioshock seems to be at least partially a critique of the idea of a libertarian utopia. You stumble upon an underwater city built by a rich visionary. His philosophy is basically this:
"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well. "
Of course, by the time you get there the place is falling apart and its crazed, genetically modified inhabitants are killing each other over weapons and raw genetic material. I am not sure whether the fact that guns were being sold in vending machines was a symptom or cause of this degeneration...
Like many, I sympathize with the amount of social freedom advocated by libertarians but find their economic policies to be ludicrous. Unfettered capitalism just can't be trusted to produce a society that is livable for most people. Of course complete regulation doesn't work so well either. The key is finding just the right balance to encourage hard work and entrepreneurship while avoiding exploitation, and that isn't easy. Unfortunately, many people would rather blindly hold to a simple ideology than deal with a difficult truth.
Posted by: Jasen | October 26, 2007 1:48 AM
Darwinfinch,
The fact that you feel the need to "find a purpose" for another human being nicely illustrates your mentality. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
Posted by: Heterocronie | October 26, 2007 2:13 AM
Aside from their unworkable economic policies (as my father observed at one point, they seem to mostly be people who took Economics 1A and then pronounced themselves experts), I've noticed that pretty much all the Libertarians I've met have been unclear on this point.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 26, 2007 2:19 AM
I've come to really really despise Libertarians.
It's almost like they live in some kind of a fantasy
world where roads, bridges, sewer systems, etc just
happen- somehow. If they thought about any of that for
a second then all that self-made-man bootstrapping
BS they constantly spew wouldn't make a bit of sense.
These jokers like to complain about free riders- but they
are the worst offenders.
Lots of guns, a weak central government, and the freedom
to do what you want- Libertarian Heaven, right? There is,
in fact, just such a place where they can all go. Certainly-
it's Iraq I'm talking about.
Yup, and when they get there, they have their big chance to shoot
their way to the top- literally.
Posted by: andy | October 26, 2007 2:25 AM
I assume Freedom Ship was one of the things Bioshock's creators had in mind with Rapture, though their main target is Rand ("Andrew Ryan?") Phenomenal game, though I don't know Rand and/or libertarians well enough to say how effective its criticism was. No doubt others will have strong opinions. They clearly weren't blaming the genetic maguffin for the fall of Rapture, despite the role it played. And yeah, of course the science was horribly wrong, but they knew that. How else could they mix tweaked steampunk with symbiotic deep-sea slugs and "magical" powers?
Posted by: rrt | October 26, 2007 2:31 AM
You dislike libertarians more than the religious right? Man, that's harsh.
(But I don't like libertarian economics much either)
Posted by: Lynet | October 26, 2007 2:45 AM
libertarianism is what everyman for himself?
that the government should stay out of our personal lives given some boundaries is OK.
If there are no taxes and no government then what do we have?
the dark ages? where the local strong man was the face of order we have done that.
libertarianism could only develop in a prosperous stable society and only exist as an idea having some influence it could never be the founding principle of anything stable by itself.
it is blind and ignorant to think that any where in the modern world you "earn you bread" by your self and are not dependent on the rest of society. the wealth depends on a stable market, On what does a stable market depend?
In the real world who would protect this "magic island" from the rest of the world.
Posted by: uncle frogy | October 26, 2007 3:00 AM
After getting a B.S. in microbiology I realized that politics was too messy for clear thought. I've been on nearly every political side at one time and thought I was right each time and could cherry pick my data with the best of 'em.
If only there was a way to test political theories more easily... then I might actually pick one. I am fond of the libertarians for their social views, rather than their economic ones. I like the idea of the free market, but I see the abuses of power and know that people are generally pretty nasty when they have material gain to protect. So I'm less inclined to favor Republicans and libertarians on that angle. At the same time I see how fucked up government run institutions are (my mother has had nothing but nightmare scenarios with the VA hospital system). So what's the solution? Government vouchers for private systems??? I've heard that notion supported and attacked.
Libertarians have a big disadvantage over their Donkey and Elephant counterparts: We don't actually KNOW if their way of doing things would work or not. We've never tried it. PZ will admit that with Dem/Rep it's a lesser of two evils. No libertarian experiment has been conducted, to my knowledge.
But to criticize everyone here in their arguments: Where's the data? It's all rhetoric right now. Political discussions are nearly worthless. Let's get back to octopus sex. Less messy, more interesting.
Posted by: Shawn S. | October 26, 2007 3:03 AM
"Yup, and when they get there, they have their big chance to shoot their way to the top- literally."
Yes sir, that's what libertarians are all about - shooting our way to the top.
Libertarians are almost universally opposed to the initiation of force. Do you people even know what a libertarian is?
Posted by: Heterocronie | October 26, 2007 3:09 AM
"libertarianism could only develop in a prosperous stable society and only exist as an idea having some influence"
You mean sort of like the Constitution of the United States?
Yeah those Founding Fathers, what a bunch of clueless, selfish pricks.
Posted by: Heterocronie | October 26, 2007 3:20 AM
Libertarian ideals are merely impossible. What you're describing, PZ, is corporate greed pretending to be libertarian, which is far worse and actually happens. It's based upon lobbying for deregulation, tax breaks, and so on ... but instead of for everyone, as in the impossible libertarian ideal, it's only given to the absolute richest people, who then become a hideous outgrowth of government, de facto subsidies since everyone poorer than them is paying the taxes to keep the society they profit off of running.
It is, in effect, the exact opposite of what libertarianism is "theoretically" about. The fact that the "theoretical" libertarian types have no solutions for this, and often refuse to acknowledge it, is really the most damning part of the impossible idealism.
Except for those little quirks, and the fact that actual libertarianism would create a power vacuum akin to a sucking chest wound, it remains a pretty neat ideal.
Posted by: Dan | October 26, 2007 3:22 AM
I know some very intelligent and nice people who are libertarians.
Then too I know some very intelligent and nice people who subscribe to such nonsense as neopaganism and Mormonism.
On the other hand, I've met a disproportionate number of really unpleasant, crass arrogant, rude people online who call themselves libertarians.
In a way, it's really a shame there's virtually no chance of libertarians ever actually succeeding in establishing one of the various hare-brained Utopian schemes - it'd be interested ot see whether the inevitable collapse would be followed by Somali style anarchy; a military dictatorship or a corporate dictatorship run by the bigger businesses.
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 26, 2007 3:48 AM
"as my father observed at one point, they seem to mostly be people who took Economics 1A and then pronounced themselves experts"
You mean amateurs like Mises, Hayek, and Alan Greenspan? Greenspan is still a libertarian/objectivist at heart, he just understood that the country wasn't ready for it, and that if he did the regulating himself, then the damage could be minimized. In case you didn't know, Greenspan was Ayn Rand's buddy, a fact that he's still quite proud of.
Posted by: Heterocronie | October 26, 2007 3:49 AM
Ouch. That hurt. Have been an avid reader of this excellent blog (though biology is not exactly my favourite subject). The criticism of libertarian ideology is surprisingly devoid of data and filled with spite. It sounds more like a post prayer rant against the Kaffirs (infidels) than anything else. While I think Ayn Rand is a pretty ordinary storyteller, some of the things she said make a lot of sense. Empowering the smallest minority of all- the individual - is a tremendous idea, especially when propagated at a time of overarching communism, where the individual loses her individuality. While markets are imperfect, they cater to human needs much better than Governments. I can cite the example of my country, India, which spent close to four decades under 'socialism'. It might sound funny, but we had to wait for up to 8 years to get a 'land line' (telephone)from the Government controlled telephone supplier (the phone instrument and the connection both took 8 years). Today, thanks to the entry of private players, it takes much, much less.
As for libertarianism, it allows the individual to pursue something close to her heart. It allows the individual the incentive to do things. To say that libertarians are selfish and small minded is a lot like saying atheists are, well, selfish and arrogant. Surprising stuff from you, PZ.
Posted by: Nandan | October 26, 2007 4:03 AM
Eh...typo in link earlier.
Posted by: Nandan | October 26, 2007 4:09 AM
Oh, dear! My TRUE COLORS are showing! Red? Back? Tartan? A soft, warm pinkins brown?
And my new slip as well!
Heterocronie, whoever you are, I need feel no regret in offending the likes of you. (Somebody drop the 16 Tons on that one!)
As for people like Nanden, who claim we are painting libertarians with too broad a brush, well, I can only speak from personal experience (perhaps thirty 100% smug, very white, greedy wackos), my interactions with libertarians on the netZ (urgh! I don't like to even THINK about them!), and the platform of the Libertarian Party, which if implemented would have the nation both bankrupt and in civil war within a decade.
I repeat: no respect for libertarians, even when their concerns happens to be in phase with my own, without prior demonstrations of sanity.
Posted by: darwinfinch | October 26, 2007 4:30 AM
These floating-city schemes remind me of George Orwell's Animal Farm -- a would-be utopia that turns out much like the old system that its inhabitants had rebelled against.
Posted by: Loren Petrich | October 26, 2007 4:46 AM
Libertarianism is the economic ideology of choice for a particular sub-group of religionists - Flying Spaghetti Monster's Witnesses who believe that eventually the FSM will return and institute a libertarian government, which will lead to Beer Volcanoes and Stripper Factories here on this very Earth, with none of that tedious shit like hospitals and roads.
Posted by: Sam | October 26, 2007 4:48 AM
Nandan: Your idealism is very sweet, but in a truly libertarian society - i.e. pretty much no state intervention in anything - saying that "it allows the individual to pursue something close to her heart" is a bit optimistic, don't you think? It allows the individual to pursue this *if she's already rich enough*. If you put all your savings/resources into some personal project (business idea) and it fails - well, too bad. Good luck eating now, without money, a job, or the qualifications to get a job quickly. Or how about healthcare? Fairly simple argument - do you think it's fair for the poorer part of the population to die of severe but curable cancer because they can't afford the treatment?
Or, to phrase it positively: I would argue that a functioning welfare state, including free healthcare for all and some sort of benefits that allow you to live in dignity, are an *absolute* necessity to allow true individual freedom - the freedom to pursue things dear to your heart, without fear of starving if it goes wrong. Not to mention a working police force/law enforcement/justice system...
I think that's related corporate element of libertarianism that PZ criticizes, as well: in a completely libertarian/anarchic system, corporations (i.e. ultimately, groups of people that gang up to pool their resources) will have unlimited freedom and hence power. But for individual freedom, it seems obvious to me that you need a welfare state and strong regulation of corporate activity.
Posted by: Julius | October 26, 2007 4:51 AM
Meh. There's libertarians and there's libertarians. (NB: I am not one.)
I've met the braying, deluded Ayn-Randian rabid nutjobs, and I've met quiet, thoughtful, tempered-with-hefty-doses-of-realism children-of-the-Enlightenment libertarians, opposed to excesses of bad government and bad markets equally. My experience of the second group is admittedly small, but I'd hate to tar them all with the same brush. I have noticed that the second group tend to be substantially older and appear to be better educated than the first.
Of course, the groups Miéville refers to seem to be firmly in the first group, and I have no problem with a bit of schadenfreude directed their way.
Posted by: efrique | October 26, 2007 5:20 AM
Thank you, efrique, for making the distinction between two types of libertarians. Most who identify with libertarian values understand the need for some government regulation in order to keep freedoms intact. Maybe they're just the quieter, more sensible ones, so they don't get considered.
Posted by: Jen | October 26, 2007 5:45 AM
Julius: Nobody has called me an idealist before, so thanks for that :). Let me clarify: I am not saying that we have anarchy: we are not ready (enlightened enough?) for it. We need the State and no realistic/practical person would say that we do not need Government. A minarchist position is closer to what I think will help society (Democratic society). I am in favour of a limited government that looks after basic things: protection of civil liberties and rights (including property rights), looking after defence and enforcement of contracts.
"If you put all your savings/resources into some personal project (business idea) and it fails - well, too bad"
Well, the underlying assumption is that one is smart enough to understand the risks of putting all savings into a personal project. It assumes an individual has the sense to take rational and mature decisions. And even if we assume that somebody messes up big-time, given human nature and labour demand and supply, the person would, in a 'libertarian economy' have an opportunity to work and rebuild her life once again.
To answer the other question: Yes, many poor people die due to cancer. I have seen enough state run hospitals in India and have heard enough about the controversy in US regarding treatment to US soldiers (please correct me here in case i have still missed anything) to know that State run Hospitals are not exactly paragons of efficiency. However, if there are correct incentives (provided by the state) and if philanthropy is properly channelized, it should not be an issue.(there are hospitals in rural India that have worked well using a mixture of philanthropy, free markets and technological/process innovation..e.g. Aravind Eye Hospital) Generally, private enterprise is more efficient and perhaps, therefore, more caring, than a State run enterprise, is my observation.
PZ is probably talking about tooth and claw capitalism, which is abhorrent- as abhorrent as violent communism. Is it a coincidence that countries that have freer markets/open economies have generally not gone to war with each other? (the Golden Arches Theory/Dell Theory of conflict Prevention?)Transpose this to individuals, and we have a workable model of peace and prosperity. We would be too interdependent to fight.
Posted by: Nandan | October 26, 2007 5:47 AM
We already know what happens when governments emasculate their own agencies, like the EPA and FDA, charged with protecting people from the excesses of industrial greed. Just look at the last few years of Republican one-party rule. The environment is ravaged, food and toys are poisoned, home owners are bankrupted, and shareholders swindled. People died.
All that with just a relaxation of government oversight. Now imagine what happens if someone like Ron Paul abolishes these agencies altogether. I can, but I can't for the life of me understand why libertarians never seem to. I've yet to find anyone who yearns for the return to the days of the robber barons.
Posted by: tacitus | October 26, 2007 5:56 AM
"It might sound funny, but we had to wait for up to 8 years to get a 'land line' (telephone)from the Government controlled telephone supplier (the phone instrument and the connection both took 8 years)." I had the same experience in Brazil, however the availability of ubiquitous cell phone technology made Government control of dispensing telephone lines pretty much moot.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | October 26, 2007 5:59 AM
The people saying that a "true Libertarianism" experiment has never been tried sure are short on their history.
Milton Friedman can pretty safely be called a Libertarian. He wanted the state to have no role in anything except controlling the federal reserve bank and matters of war.
You can see the effect of these crackpot economic theories on the people of Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, and Brazil, among others. These 'reforms' did nothing more than make people poor, homeless, and dead. Most of these countries got their 'reforms' purely on the economic side, and in most cases under the thumb of brutal military junta's, but this was something Friedman and his ilk were entirely comfortable with.
Posted by: Gordon S | October 26, 2007 6:01 AM
Randan, Fernando..
Re Telephone lines ...
You are not talking about private versus public, just about monopolies. Now just imagine the monopolies are completely unaccountable (i.e. no politician could do a Ralph Nader on them) (bingo Robber Barron coming up). The market has its uses (for people with money) but it is not by itself a panacea. You a good functioning and well designed Democracy as well. Pretending that government is the problem and the whole problem (and in its essence - regardless of how the government is constituted) is the Libertarian conceit. In other words, I like what Libertarians say they want to acchieve (HEY FREEDOM, MAN) but I think they are disastrously mistaken in how they want to go about it. (Mostly because they get distracted by believing their own ideology.) Small incremental steps in a Libertarian direction are good, introducing the whole of their program, probably a disaster. I think Russia under Yeltzin is a good approximation for what a Libertarian state would look like in practice.
Posted by: reason | October 26, 2007 6:17 AM
Just because public healthcare has failed to work in some countries, it doesn't mean that it fails to work in all countries. It all depends on how it's funded and managed, and there are plenty of examples of good public healthcare around the world.
Libertarianism is not something that would work in any country, though.
Posted by: MH | October 26, 2007 6:24 AM
And as for VA Hospitals see:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html
Public institutions can be well run or badly run as private ones. Most private enterprise supporters will agree to that - but just point out that the (COMPETITIVE)market tends to gives immediate feedback to badly run private ones. I don't disagree, but of course a well functioning democracy should also give feedback to badly run public ones.
Most objective reports about problems for veterans of Iraq have to do with deliberate underresourcing (which would be problem whether it was private or public). Medicine is a problem in every country, simply because it contains within it a moral element that negates the normal moral assumptions underlying the market (that people are making free choices based on a rational and informed evaluation of optional alternatives).
Posted by: reason | October 26, 2007 6:30 AM
Interesting discussions here, but of topic: has anyone read the books of China Miéville? They are really good ;-)!
Posted by: Kris Verburgh | October 26, 2007 6:36 AM
WWLD? (what would libertarians do?) In this case about the California fires. Take San Diego for example.
"At the same time, he said it was disheartening to know that four years after some of the costliest fires in state history tore through the area, little had been done to better the odds of fighting fires there.
Bowman had told San Diego city officials it would cost at least $100 million to add needed new stations and equipment and $40 million a year more to increase staff. That investment, he said, is what it would take to bring San Diego into compliance with national standards. Those guidelines call for a city of San Diego's size to have at least 22 more stations than the current 46, and 1,300 firefighters, up from the 980 now on staff.
But his appeal had no effect. Four months after the Cedar fire, a ballot proposal to boost hotel-motel taxes to pay for better fire protection failed to win voter approval. The City Council, mindful of the anti-tax mood of residents, has opted not to try again.
San Diego was recently denied full accreditation by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International, now called the Center for Public Safety Excellence, because many of its stations fail to meet the five-minute standard for arriving at major fires or calls for paramedic service.
"This whole county is fire protection poor," Bowman said, noting that the city has added only one fire station in the four years since more than 5,000 homes and businesses were destroyed in the Cedar fire. And that temporary station near Qualcomm Stadium is in an area where at least two permanent stations have been recommended by fire officials for the last 20 years."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prepare23oct23,0,6144290.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center
Maybe just let it burn and then get compensation from their private insurance company? Maybe, just maybe, a little prevention and preparation is better than a whole lot of rebuilding.
Posted by: bernarda | October 26, 2007 6:41 AM
Nandan: You're blathering on about state-run hospitals being inefficient and uncaring (and then citing examples from India and Bush-era America, rather than France, Canada, or Britain) is completely ridiculous. Rather than attack, however, the mere issue of private vs public health care, an issue that has been so completely covered and so obliterating to the argument for private hospitals, I will rather take on the big one: that private business is efficient, in anything, at all.
It isn't.
The libertarian economic argument relies entirely on the premise that private business is efficient, and that competition magically lowers cost and increases quality of any service or product, or at least provides a reasonable cross-section of quality/price choices.
It seems to me, looking at real world examples of this, that there is absolutely no factual basis for this. Let me provide a few examples, and I'd like to see your responses.
1) The OECD ranks countries health care systems based on a number of metrics. The United States currently publicly outspends all but three other rich, Western nations on health care, per capita. Then, there is the private expenditures that, of course, dwarf every other country by an enormous margin. And, all the other countried use this money to insure all citizens, whereas the US provides no health care for more than 40 million of it's citizens. So, it is safe to say that the US hugely outspends all other countries on health care, to cover less people. What is gained out of it? You should, obviously, have a hugely better health care system, right? Wrong. You have a health care system that is worse than even Canada, which has the worst of the public systems, in every single health metric the OECD measures except for, surprise surprise, elective surgery wait times.
So my question is: If private business is more effective, why has it failed America so spectacularly?
2) I live in BC, Canada. In BC, we have a publically owned corporation, ICBC, which offers car insurance, among other things. It has a monopoly. Many other provinces, such as Ontario and New Brunswick, have purely private systems, where different companies compete, freely. According to libertarians, the provinces with private companies that compete openly and freely, should offer cheaper services than a system which is run by a state-owned monopoly, which would, of course, be inefficient and uncaring, to use your own words. We find the opposite. The provinces with public systems, or even mixed public/private systems, have consistently and significantly lower rates for auto insurance.
My question to you is: Why is this so? Why has the private system failed to lower costs?
That's all I really want to ask.
My answer to both those questions is straightforward. Libertarians believe that the free market lowers costs by competing for customers, and that customers will move to the company which offers some balance between being cheap and being reliable. This is wrong. In reality, the competition between free market forces is not to attract customers by being the cheapest or best, but by charging as much as possible while still retaining clientele. This works especially well for essential services such as banking, health care, and insurance.
Posted by: Gordon S | October 26, 2007 6:42 AM
Uh...for the record...my name is Nandan. Nanden and Randan, though interesting, are not my names or variations thereof.
@ Fernando: Exactly. The mobile revolution in India happened because Government got the hell out of the way.
@ Reason:
" Now just imagine the monopolies are completely unaccountable"
and many systems of Governments tend to become that. That is where the concern arises from. Western democracies have been successful, partly because the number of times the citizen has to interact with the Government is low and easy to seek redress in case of grievance. Also, it is pretty easy to set up a private enterprise. In other democracies, things are different. Libertarianism, as I understand, cannot function without democracy. It is a necessary condition. As for small incremental steps towards libertarianism, agree with that PoV. You cannot bring about large scale changes to a large system in one go...that is revolution, and not in a good sense most of the times.
Here in India, some of us keep saying that we are held back by the 'system' and at least for India, most people believe that small incremental steps towards libertarianism would help us more than anything else.
Posted by: Nandan | October 26, 2007 7:04 AM
While we wait for Cal to descend on the (un)suspecting thread, I can offer my own analysis, because there is a lot about this post and the article that immediately jumps out to me.
Much as I think areas of society can be outright condemned, religion being a prime example, I do think such a judgment should be based in factual claims. I don't see much of that when it comes to politics in general or libertarianism here. It seems as in the post being kneejerk reactions, often based in earlier conflicts.
And what is the article based in? It describes an utopian (and thus naive) project that involves tax invasion and a model of a ship based society in all probability ruled by international laws of the sea. Then it loosely ties the ever popular tax evasion phenomena, supported and realized by other political movements, onto a movement that has never been at power AFAIU.
It also skips over laws at sea as rule by captain. I'm not familiar with if there are such laws and what they encompass. But I can't believe it is a lawless sector.
And the article is abridged reprint of a chapter of a book criticizing neo-liberalism. (Evil Paradises: Dreamworlds of Neoliberalism.) Isn't there a whole lot of conflation going on here?
Further expressions such as "institutionalized selfishness, petty small-mindedness, and bourgeois values" are moral values based on a different view. But how does the politic works for real, if it works at all? Hopefully someone will tell us. Right, Cal? :-P
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | October 26, 2007 7:11 AM
..and yet libertarians are your least favorite group. I guess that means that you don't have much confidence in your ability to convince people through words rather than at the point of a gun.
Do you see any guns here?
I've never met an intellectually honest libertarian.
Posted by: truth machine | October 26, 2007 7:11 AM
At the same time I see how fucked up government run institutions are (my mother has had nothing but nightmare scenarios with the VA hospital system)
Usually fucked up by people who don't care about those institutions. It isn't necessary for these institutions to be fucked up. This is the fundamental stupidity of libertarianism -- they blather about problems with government programs, but they have no principled theory of why government programs must be bad. The fact is that there are many government programs that are excellent (often stuff we take for granted, like police, firefighters, roads, tree trimmers, water treatment, and on and on) that libertarians won't talk about, and lots and lots of private "programs" like health insurance that are just horrid. Libertarianism is juvenile and can't survive intellectually honest scrutiny.
Posted by: truth machine | October 26, 2007 7:21 AM
Libertarians have a big disadvantage over their Donkey and Elephant counterparts: We don't actually KNOW if their way of doing things would work or not. We've never tried it.
Um, did you forget to read article? And we tried it before we invented culture and society.
Posted by: truth machine | October 26, 2007 7:23 AM
Libertarians are almost universally opposed to the initiation of force.
Whether true or not, libertarians turn a blind eye to coercion.
Posted by: truth machine | October 26, 2007 7:25 AM
My brother, David, is a libertarian and I find his blog http://lawlegislationandlunacy.blogspot.com/ to be filled with garbage centered around the idea "anything Government does is Bad and anything Private Enterprise does is Good". He's also graduate student in economics and hasn't spent much time in the real world. As much as I've seen libertarianism is a nice-sounding theory that degrades into abuses of power when it comes in contact with reality.
PS He doesn't get much traffic on his site so everyone please go there and comment on his blogs. At the least, they can be worth a laugh.
Posted by: Alverant | October 26, 2007 7:29 AM
I've met the braying, deluded Ayn-Randian rabid nutjobs, and I've met quiet, thoughtful, tempered-with-hefty-doses-of-realism children-of-the-Enlightenment libertarians, opposed to excesses of bad government and bad markets equally.
Eh? How would or could these libertarians control excesses of bad markets? Market interference isn't allowed.
Posted by: truth machine | October 26, 2007 7:30 AM
Most who identify with libertarian values understand the need for some government regulation in order to keep freedoms intact.
Then they are confused about what libertarianism is.
Posted by: truth machine | October 26, 2007 7:34 AM
Milton Friedman can pretty safely be called a Libertarian. He wanted the state to have no role in anything except controlling the federal reserve bank and matters of war.
You can see the effect of these crackpot economic theories on the people of Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, and Brazil, among others.
Indeed, and those who claim that the political philosophy is independent of the crimes are ignorant, lying, or in denial -- read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" which documents the truth about it.
Posted by: truth machine | October 26, 2007 7:38 AM
Man, as an atheist libertarian I get shit on everywhere I go.
Posted by: Jack | October 26, 2007 7:43 AM
Nandan:
I believe I just realized that there could be a problem in India, but I haven't had time to check it out. Yesterday I had the choice of watching a television documentary on market protections or Miller's Crossing. The movie classic won out, but I glimpsed a segment comparing an India car manufacturer with a Japanese.
For 50 years the India car kept to the same model and yearly output, while we all know what happened with the Japanese cars. It was blamed on market protections. (Well, considering the documentary focus, duh!) I would certainly want to know more about India's specific situation, not least because so many individuals are affected.
When you added the combination of democracy and free market, I can tentatively agree with you. I believe this combination of politics has raised living standards the most, including among the ~ 20 % or so that free markets leave in the lower or no income segment. (But I can never remember where I heard that - another documentary I believe. So its hearsay.)
On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be strictly necessary for a reasonable economy to work. According to Gapminder the earlier bimodal distribution of national economies are coalescing into a unimodal one. Also, IIRC Rosling in that TED speech notes that nations that pushed social medicine first and market economies later will still converge on the main trend.
On a more petty level I wish the web would have a larger flat cost. That could reduce the amount of spam considerably. :-P
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | October 26, 2007 7:46 AM
I find PZ's vehement opposition to libertarianism hypocritical. On the one hand, he goes to great lengths to discredit those who profess an unjustified faith in the supernatural. At the same time he apparently holds the view that the government is a benign and enlightened actor whose interventions usually achieve the goal at which they aim. However, I find little evidence to support this belief, and abundant evidence to contradict it. Is this not also an instance of unjustified faith?
Posted by: atlas1882 | October 26, 2007 7:50 AM
Posted by: Tulse | October 26, 2007 7:51 AM
People interested in libertarianism should remember the rule TANSTAAFM
(there ain't no such thing as a free market)
Posted by: Zarquon | October 26, 2007 7:58 AM
"its hearsay" - it's hearsay.
"the main trend" of health and capita income.
Btw, IIRC it has with the recent unimodal economical distribution now become a fairly linear relationship with some oddities. I have a vague memory that US is as most always the bad kid in the class.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | October 26, 2007 8:04 AM
The government's been interfering with my right to own slaves.
Posted by: Ericb | October 26, 2007 8:11 AM
atlas1882
No he doesn't. (George Bush is in charge) He thinks it can be. Really? Read a bit of history. How you vote DOES make a difference.
But talking about unjustified faith - what about your faith in the unregulated market.
Posted by: reason | October 26, 2007 8:25 AM
I think you may be conflating interest with positive interest. Personally, most of my interest comes from people reacting so strongly to it. It probably has cultural context, since I'm not sure I've ever met a libertarian here (Sweden).
OTOH we are free to explore a lot of political (and religious) views early on, so for example anarchists of different groupings you do meet. The article the post links to places anarchism under libertarianism, another conflation I'm not sure is valid as there are collectivist anarchists as well.
Anyway, anarchist politics can be pretty offensive as well. And when I think about it it seems to me that people seem to react as strongly here. But some anarchists have done a lot of bad things for real, from French history over Soviet history to WWI instigation to outright terrorism, which invalidates the idea, at least as far as the collective versions go.
I'm not sure that applies to libertarians. These circumstances evokes my interest.
Another question you raise to is what characterizes a "free market"? As happens with populations in evolution, markets crash or get stuck in a bad situation. If regulations or active measures are constituted in such cases, is that still not a free market in economical terms?
And finally, I thought most economical libertarianism was focusing on minimizing such measures, not removing them. As it seems they love markets. :-P
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | October 26, 2007 8:28 AM
Every self identified Libertarian I've encountered on the internet (I have never met an actual real live one) has been blithely dismissive of any call to aid the people who for whatever reason are unable to help themselves. Every man for himself, in my estimation, means every child for himself as well, and if your parents are disfunctional or dead, well, that's just too bad - starve in the gutter, kid.
When this subject is brought up, (and my categorey includes the disabled, the addled senior, the mentally ill, etc.), the Libertarian tosses off a line about how 'charities' (usually he means 'churches') will take care of such human problems. At this point it is obvious the Libertarian is either a religious nut or is living in a total dreamworld.
Posted by: Bee | October 26, 2007 8:33 AM
This is a completely unsupported assertion that gets right to the heart of libertarian illogic. Most rational people understand that government in the abstract is neither benign, nor malignant. Most people understand this because they have had plenty of experience with government being both and because they are able to think through the simple implications of fair government with regard to the project of both social cohesiveness and individual freedom. For some reason, libertarians have some trouble understanding these simple concepts. Its quite bizarre and it is precisely why libertarianism cannot be taken seriously.
Posted by: brent | October 26, 2007 8:36 AM
Unfettered capitalism is not even stable. Capitalism has to be protected from itself all the time. Look the other way for a few years, and corporations form cartels with monopolies.
Like in biology, where competition is selected against, too, because it's a waste of energy.
Oh, if someone gets the idea and finds a way to make money with it, they will happen.
If not, they won't.
Case in point: the US health insurance system.
And Lenin and Stalin truly believed that the state would "die off" over time, they just understood that it was necessary to have "socialism" before "communism", and if they themselves led the "dictature of the proletariate", the damage could be minimized"...
I'm well aware that this is a comparison across plenty of orders of magnitude. But the principle sounds similar. Doesn't it?
Bingo.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 26, 2007 8:41 AM
And libertarians are "utopian"?
Posted by: Jack | October 26, 2007 9:03 AM
A science professor that works in the public university against libertarianism. Wow - that's original.
Sorry PZ - unlike you most of us have to operate in the real world.
Posted by: yoshi | October 26, 2007 9:09 AM
Wow, PZ apparently hates libertarians worse than Nazis and Communists. Is this because a small fraction hate their taxes supporting things like war so much they are willing to forgo certain advantages to live on a boat (or so they think)? Don't be so sure you know motivation PZ till you've actually talked to one of the boaters.
This is the same exact problem I saw with another post of PZs in which he overgeneralized to all "religions". Libertarianism is very broad. There are even socialists who call themselves libertarians.
Sloppy.
Posted by: Brian Macker | October 26, 2007 9:17 AM
Not all libertarians are 100% free market Ayn Rand nut jobs, some have the sense to realize that altruism is an evolutionary illusion of a largely social species, and that Ayn Rand's philosophies and the free market both entail trespasses on the freedom of individuals and that they subsequently do need some control.
I find the fact that some members of the skeptic/atheist/pro-science movements are so oppose to all libertarians on principle to be relatively distasteful, and hypachritical (as someone pointed out before) and more likely based on objects to the wacko libertarians than all libertarians.
Many libertarians believe that government is necessary and that it can do good. Personally, I believe the most important aspects of the government are to serve people, ie put out the California fires or provide affordable (read free) education, and protect the freedom of the individual, which I believe means that the government does have a duty that runs contrary to having a free market.
I also certainly have no problem paying taxes, as I am getting something in return, and see this as comparable to the idea that many libertarians have of paying charities or businesses for the same services.
I guess for me it is an issue of ideals vs. reality. I have no illusion of altruism, and so see that a free market etc cannot work without ruining people's lives and subsequently see the necessity for government, yet I self identify as a libertarian because I believe in the ideal of a government that allows as much freedom as possible to the people who live under it. It seems that most of those who vehemently hate libertarians do so because of vocal minority of loons, not because of the larger more moderate group of people that have similer ideas.
Posted by: Thadd | October 26, 2007 9:20 AM
"Is this because a small fraction hate their taxes supporting things like war so much they are willing to forgo certain advantages to live on a boat (or so they think)? Don't be so sure you know motivation PZ till you've actually talked to one of the boaters."
I find it strange that someone could hate someone who does not pay taxes in protest of something like this, growing up, I always saw Thoreau as a hero of peaceful protest. I am all for paying taxes, but I certainly understand using it as a form of free speech, which is what this is.
Posted by: Thadd | October 26, 2007 9:24 AM
Libertarians have a few simplistic, reductionist ideas, which they have lathered up with lots of enthusiastic, patriotic lingo.
They do nothing but spread stupidity.
It's the American way.
They should stop bothering the rest of us, go find an island somewhere, and start up Libertopia.
Everyone would be able to haul around a gun, which they will use to patrol their sacrosanct little properties as they spend their days finding ever new ways of being selfish and greedy.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 26, 2007 9:27 AM
Like in biology, where competition is selected against, too, because it's a waste of energy.
Say what?
Posted by: windy | October 26, 2007 9:29 AM
And by 'sanity', you mean "agreement with my own prejudices".
What's remarkable is that so many people claim to reject the philosophy, yet utilize it so frequently - like the teaching professor of science.
Shall we take a look at how the professor's classes are graded? Or how the scientific community deals with research and ideas? Sink or swim. Publish or perish. You get what you earn, and no more than what you earn. Do the work or fail. It's been said that liberals want to minimize the number of people who fail, and conservatives want to maximize the number of people who succeed. Somehow I don't think PZ lowers the standards in his classes to make it easier for people not to fail.
Posted by: