John Stossel: Why I am a libertarian

[ProfJohn]

Nice op-ed the explains the allure of libertarianism.

I would suspect that if we actually had a libertarian party in this country that it would have a clear majority over Ds and Rs.

I also think that the main reason Republicans have enjoyed so much political success in the past few decades, pre-Bush, was due to the fact that they appealed to the libertarian mindset far more than Democrats. Conservatism is essentially libertarianism with some added morality to it (ie. no drugs, abortion etc) and a strong defensive military posture.

I think one of the reasons the Democrats have experienced such a big backlash since Obama took over is that Americans want a smaller less obtrusive government that works instead of a large over bearing government.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/07/what_am_i_105075.html

I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.

But what does that mean?

When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.

We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.

By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.

Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.

I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.

So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.

When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"

I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.

"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."

But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?

"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."

Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.

"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...

"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."

Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.

"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way -- maybe it's the first -- is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."

This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.

Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.

"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"

I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.

 

[UberNeuman]

He never got over the time he got smacked in the ears by that wrestler...

 

[Mani]

I can respect the libertarian point of view. But it's a far cry from republicans who are no more in support of limited government than democrats are.

 

[UberNeuman]

I can respect the libertarian point of view. But it's a far cry from republicans who are no more in support of limited government than democrats are.

"libertarian" tends to be a banner that some "republicans" run under once a storm comes upon them... but the ideology doesn't change...

\wonders what the OP's opinion is of the "government" sticking its nose into the private matters of Michael Schiavo would be...

 

[First]

"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."

lmao. Leave it to libertarians to say that private charaties will provide for people while claiming that private citizens shouldn't be forced to, uh, provide for people via taxes. How can you want to keep more of your own dollars yet still claim private charaties are going to get those same dollars and distribute it to people? If you actually follow through on the logic it's inevitable that people that want to keep more of their income aren't going to voluntarily give the same amount of money away to charity that they would have been taxed at anyway. You can't reconcile the two concepts, they're contradictory. Although I suppose these are the same people that truly buy into the notion that private charities are a bastion of business efficiency and speed of service rivaled only by FedEx and McDonalds? Ideologues galore.

And I still can't help but chuckle at people that don't see that, using their own arguments, reducing the size of government so de-incentivizes people that those who "earn" their money will then of course have no incentive to actually give it to other people. It's no coincidence that "small" gov't lackies are usually the same people that want to keep more of "their" money because it's really not about economic efficiency, tyranny or morality that makes taxes distasteful, but more likely seems rooted in good old-fashioned greed, or maybe discontent with one's existence? Fact is, any honest person knows they'd have far less incentive to give away their income if they weren't forced to via taxes, and that those who can't genuinely provide for themselves due to age, health, disability, etc. are inevitably going to be lacking far more care than the alternative of big bad gov't services. The trade-off is that you'll keep less of your dollars for yourself, but let's be honest, you weren't going to give it to private charity and there's little reason to think Americans were going to invest it based on our debt-to-savings ratios.

 

[bamacre]

I would suspect that if we actually had a libertarian party in this country that it would have a clear majority over Ds and Rs.

There is one, it sucks, and it doesn't.

I also think that the main reason Republicans have enjoyed so much political success in the past few decades, pre-Bush, was due to the fact that they appealed to the libertarian mindset far more than Democrats.

I tend to disagree. Maybe with talk, but not with actions. Reagan said a lot of good things, but did a lot of bad things.

Conservatism is essentially libertarianism with some added morality to it (ie. no drugs, abortion etc) and a strong defensive military posture.

Again, maybe with talk. Replace "morality" with social conservatism, and "defensive" with "offensive," and you'll see that the GOP has no room for libertarianism, and doesn't want to. The GOP leadership has tried to snag Ron Paul's seat from him, and they're trying the same with his son right now. They are no different than the Democrats, their vision of big government is just a little different, that's all. Welfare state, warfare state, and the "bipartisanship" and "compromise" has only given us both.

 

[bamacre]

lmao. Leave it to libertarians to say that private charaties will provide for people while claiming that private citizens shouldn't be forced to, uh, provide for people via taxes. How can you want to keep more of your own dollars yet still claim private charaties are going to get those same dollars and distribute it to people? If you actually follow through on the logic it's inevitable that people that want to keep more of their income aren't going to voluntarily give the same amount of money away to charity that they would have been taxed at anyway.

Not true, and in fact reality already disagrees with you. Maybe you can research how much money Americans already voluntarily give every year, on top of the money they already pay in taxes. I know there's a little hospital down the street from me that spends a million dollars a day, 98+% of which comes from private donations. Also, I don't know of any charities that spend their donations on war, while our gov't spends almost a trillion dollars per year overseas.

 

[First]

Not true, and in fact reality already disagrees with you. Maybe you can research how much money Americans already voluntarily give every year, on top of the money they already pay in taxes. I know there's a little hospital down the street from me that spends a million dollars a day, 98+% of which comes from private donations. Also, I don't know of any charities that spend their donations on war, while our gov't spends almost a trillion dollars per year overseas.

No, objective reality shows that private charitable donations continue to maintain their % of non-taxed income even when taxes are reduced. Meaning that when Americans have more income to themselves via lower taxes, they don't actually donate it, they usually spend/save a vast majority of it. Hate to break it to you, but it is what it is. Google and BLS are your friends.

http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing/market-research/884096-1.html
http://www.bls.gov/cex/

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Republicans do not believe in small government anymore. They believe in growing the government at a rate of around 10% of what Democrats believe. If they were for small government, they'd take a look at our bloated government and see that it needs to be a small percent of what it is now, not slowly increasing in size.

So we have one party that is just full of shitheads, and one that is not as big of shitheads. Although there are people that truely good, and there are very few of them. They are all republicans or run as libertarians. They actually do the things they are supposed to do.

Reagan - Firearm Owners Protection Act (and Hughes Amendment)
Bush 1 - Semiautomatic Assault Rifle Ban of 1989
Bush 2 - Patriot Act

Protectors of the constitution my ass.

The Republican Party - "Hey, at least we're better than the Democrats!"

No, objective reality shows that private charitable donations continue to maintain their % of non-taxed income even when taxes are reduced. Meaning that when Americans have more income to themselves via lower taxes, they don't actually donate it, they usually spend/save a vast majority of it. Hate to break it to you, but it is what it is. Google and BLS are your friends.

http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing/market-research/884096-1.html
http://www.bls.gov/cex/

Then I guess when given the choice, Americans don't think it's worth it. Or.. or... orrr..... when you tax people less there are less poor people that need handouts. Omigosh.

 

[Throckmorton]

Question for John Stossel: Why aren't more libertarian and capitalist third world countries less wealthy than we are? The libertarian paradises are places like Somalia and Haiti. No public education, no public infrastructure. It's all private!!

 

[totalnoob]

If Libertarians had their way, you would see SIGNIFICANT cuts in tax rates (80%+ reduction on the income tax). The paltry little "tax cuts" we've gotten over the past few years have been practically unnoticeable.

 

[irishScott]

Question for John Stossel: Why aren't more libertarian and capitalist third world countries less wealthy than we are? The libertarian paradises are places like Somalia and Haiti. No public education, no public infrastructure. It's all private!!

Last I checked Libertarian and Anarchist are two different things. Go educate yourself.

 

[Genx87]

He never got over the time he got smacked in the ears by that wrestler...

He settled out of court for several hundred grand with the then WWF. I am sure he got over it just fine when he cashed that check.

 

[Genx87]

Question for John Stossel: Why aren't more libertarian and capitalist third world countries less wealthy than we are? The libertarian paradises are places like Somalia and Haiti. No public education, no public infrastructure. It's all private!!

fail

 

[nobodyknows]

John Stossel is just another tightie rightie asshole.

 

[werepossum]

While my views are largely libertarian and I voted Libertarian for a couple decades after Reagan, I can't support a party that is not for strong checks on immigration and a strong national defense. The Libertarian Party seems to be mostly concerned with legalizing drugs nowadays and has no plan for restoring manufacturing to this country other than low taxes and free trade. The former can't be reduced enough to make us competitive with Red China and India, and the latter hasn't exactly been a rousing success for those countries at the top of the socioeconomic ladder.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I wonder how 'libertarian' Mr. Stossel will be when he loses his mortgage deduction and child tax credits?





--

 

[MotF Bane]

Question for John Stossel: Why aren't more libertarian and capitalist third world countries less wealthy than we are? The libertarian paradises are places like Somalia and Haiti. No public education, no public infrastructure. It's all private!!

Not content with owning yourself in the apartheid thread, are you? As irishScott said, there's a huge difference between libertarianism and anarchy.

 

[Red Dawn]

Not content with owning yourself in the apartheid thread, are you? As irishScott said, there's a huge difference between libertarianism and anarchy.

True, Anarchy actually exists. Somalia is a prime example.

 

[HumblePie]

Not true, and in fact reality already disagrees with you. Maybe you can research how much money Americans already voluntarily give every year, on top of the money they already pay in taxes. I know there's a little hospital down the street from me that spends a million dollars a day, 98+% of which comes from private donations. Also, I don't know of any charities that spend their donations on war, while our gov't spends almost a trillion dollars per year overseas.

To make a point, your anecdote is amusing, but not enlightening. The reason you see additional "private" donations is not for charity sake. It's for tax write offs. It's a cost saving mechanism.

However, there will always be some individuals that would actually donate privately from the kindness of their own hearts. Truth be told, that is relatively few and would be significantly less available funds for charities.

The other problem is, many charities and charity money is regulated. Not all, but the big ones are. Why? Because before they were, the corruption in them was rampant. Not saying that there still isn't some corruption, but it not nearly at the crime wave level that it used to be. Incoming money from taxes allow the government to monitor and regulate the bigger charities to make sure your tax dollars aren't all going into one person's pocket.

 

[MJinZ]

lmao. Leave it to libertarians to say that private charaties will provide for people while claiming that private citizens shouldn't be forced to, uh, provide for people via taxes. How can you want to keep more of your own dollars yet still claim private charaties are going to get those same dollars and distribute it to people? If you actually follow through on the logic it's inevitable that people that want to keep more of their income aren't going to voluntarily give the same amount of money away to charity that they would have been taxed at anyway. You can't reconcile the two concepts, they're contradictory. Although I suppose these are the same people that truly buy into the notion that private charities are a bastion of business efficiency and speed of service rivaled only by FedEx and McDonalds? Ideologues galore.

And I still can't help but chuckle at people that don't see that, using their own arguments, reducing the size of government so de-incentivizes people that those who "earn" their money will then of course have no incentive to actually give it to other people. It's no coincidence that "small" gov't lackies are usually the same people that want to keep more of "their" money because it's really not about economic efficiency, tyranny or morality that makes taxes distasteful, but more likely seems rooted in good old-fashioned greed, or maybe discontent with one's existence? Fact is, any honest person knows they'd have far less incentive to give away their income if they weren't forced to via taxes, and that those who can't genuinely provide for themselves due to age, health, disability, etc. are inevitably going to be lacking far more care than the alternative of big bad gov't services. The trade-off is that you'll keep less of your dollars for yourself, but let's be honest, you weren't going to give it to private charity and there's little reason to think Americans were going to invest it based on our debt-to-savings ratios.

AHahahhaha. I just have to LOL in agreement with this.

Libertarians are fucking hilarious. They want all the benefits of EVERYTHING including benefits and protection from society, but believe they don't need to PAY for any of it, and their own work product and money are FULLY Deserved as if they exist in a BUBBLE.

I have to say, the I have the LEAST respect for Libertarians of all the parties.

 

[daishi5]

To make a point, your anecdote is amusing, but not enlightening. The reason you see additional "private" donations is not for charity sake. It's for tax write offs. It's a cost saving mechanism.

However, there will always be some individuals that would actually donate privately from the kindness of their own hearts. Truth be told, that is relatively few and would be significantly less available funds for charities.

The other problem is, many charities and charity money is regulated. Not all, but the big ones are. Why? Because before they were, the corruption in them was rampant. Not saying that there still isn't some corruption, but it not nearly at the crime wave level that it used to be. Incoming money from taxes allow the government to monitor and regulate the bigger charities to make sure your tax dollars aren't all going into one person's pocket.

So, if charities have to be regulated because we cannot trust them to not pocket the money, who is regulating the government that regulates the charities to make sure they are not pocketing the tax money we pay them to make sure the charities are not pocketing the money we donate to them?

 

[MJinZ]

So, if charities have to be regulated because we cannot trust them to not pocket the money, who is regulating the government that regulates the charities to make sure they are not pocketing the tax money we pay them to make sure the charities are not pocketing the money we donate to them?

YOU ARE. Don't you vote for the Government? Or I thought we lived in a Democracy.

Wait, what AM I thinking anyway? Like 80% of the people in the US don't vote.

 

[HumblePie]

So, if charities have to be regulated because we cannot trust them to not pocket the money, who is regulating the government that regulates the charities to make sure they are not pocketing the tax money we pay them to make sure the charities are not pocketing the money we donate to them?

Uhh, we do. You can request any and all information, even financial information, from any government agency. Only in the case of national security can you not gain access as an ordinary citizen. Charities don't count as national security to give you a clue. So you can look at all the books and "regulate" the government however you want. You do know you can do this right? Many people do, which is what puts the balance on government regulation from going overly corrupt as well.

 

[irishScott]

While my views are largely libertarian and I voted Libertarian for a couple decades after Reagan, I can't support a party that is not for strong checks on immigration and a strong national defense. The Libertarian Party seems to be mostly concerned with legalizing drugs nowadays and has no plan for restoring manufacturing to this country other than low taxes and free trade. The former can't be reduced enough to make us competitive with Red China and India, and the latter hasn't exactly been a rousing success for those countries at the top of the socioeconomic ladder.

Yep. Like most political parties, the politics don't always follow the philosophy. I agree with a lot of the Libertarian ideals, but the current Libertarian politicians take things to extremes. Hell just check out their homepage. They're opposed to the census (of all things) and believe we should just hit the cancel button on the Afghanistan War.

http://www.lp.org/