- Related Stories
-
Ron Paul: The Internet's favorite candidate
August 6, 2007 -
America's tech moment of truth
June 21, 2007 -
Cypress CEO: Time to take a different tack on energy
July 18, 2006
It's the same story every couple of years. Let's clear the deck of lawyers! Let's stop supporting failing industries and others with subsidies! A national ID plan is the first step toward totalitarianism! There's even a candidate--Ron Paul, running as a Republican--championing many of the signature causes. He wants to eliminate the IRS and claims you may need a doctor's prescription for vitamins if the U.S. stays in the WTO.
Our God-given right to Flintstone's Chewables! You'll have to pry them out of my cold, dead hands.
In general, the platform revolves around two principles. One, we should only pass laws that make sense. And two, the government should interfere in the economy and people's lives as little as possible. In the abstract, these are fine principles with which nearly everyone can agree. In practice, they're a crock, and here are some of the reasons why:
1. Government regulation is good. Not always, but often. The unfettered free market cannot solve all problems. Even Adam Smith said there's a tendency toward collusion. Thus, you need to apply regulatory frameworks to keep it in line.
History makes the regulatory case. Critics said the creation of the SEC in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash would end free enterprise. Instead, it curbed fraudulent trading and created a stable foundation for a huge expansion of equity. Zoning and land use laws were derided as "takings" of property in the early 1900s. But now you don't have to worry about your neighbor erecting a hog-rendering plant next to your condo, or threatening to do so without a payoff. And the stock market explosion of the '90s? Was it caused by scaled-back regulation or the implementation of retirement laws that let people put more money into the stock market?
Admittedly, health and safety laws can add costs and delay products. Just ask the factory owners in China who have been exporting products with lead paint.
2. It can also open opportunities. The above just goes over preventative laws. What about laws that create freedoms? Until the 1860s, limited-liability corporations--which allowed investors to pool their money and not easily get sued directly--didn't exist. Limited liability massively interferes with free market principles: large organizations couldn't exist without it. Getting rid of it might actually be good for controlling campaign contributions and income inequality. But few people probably want to seriously reverse the policy.
3. We live on government subsidies. One of the chief ironies of Silicon Valley is that it's a hotbed of antigovernment sentiment and one of the biggest beneficiaries of government spending. Stanford went from being a regional university to a global powerhouse through aggressive pursuit of federal and state grants in the '50s. The Internet? A military project. Ask all of the cellular carriers if they'd really like to pay the fair market value for their spectrum.
We don't want to go bonkers with funding. If NASA offered someone $5.6 million to develop a lazy Susan that could operate in zero gravity, I'd say no. But if you take the money, you shouldn't be allowed to whine too much.
The green-tech revolution will require a lot of up-front spending from the government, as well. T.J. Rodgers, Cypress Semiconductor's CEO, underscored the dichotomy on the issue in an interview last year.
"I don't like subsidies. I don't think the government ought to be taking money from people and giving it to other people, for any reason," he said. "Having said that, the subsidies in Germany--I'm all for the German subsidies (laughs). I'm real happy to take money from the German government...I just don't like American subsidies."
4. Individuals don't always act reasonably. People can be motivated by carefully calculated self-interest, but they also act out of spite, jealousy, group solidarity and delusions of grandeur. In a world run by logic, there is no place for pistol-whipping someone in a Las Vegas hotel room for O.J. memorabilia.
Thus, trying to pass laws or resolve conflicts through a shared notion of "common sense" invariably will fail. Unfettered freedom of speech? Everyone loves it. But should there be restrictions on pornographic sites? On pornographic sites in which your head is grafted onto that of an actor? We live in world of gray.
5. We're born to cheat. Besides being the home of the free and the brave, America has also given birth to more chiselers than perhaps any nations on earth--another reason I love this country. Everyone has an angle.
Simplifying regulations--only passing laws that are three paragraphs long at most (another common libertarian chant)--would lead to all sorts of creative scams. The flat tax wouldn't be imposed for five minutes before a thriving gray market existed.
6. Compromise isn't fun. This is the untidy, unspoken secret of libertarianism: it's no fun holding office. To get bills passed, you have to water them down and engage in horse trading. Carping from the sides holds much more promise.
The federal bureaucracy is by no means perfect and tax revenues are spent imperfectly. But what happens when you get a small, centralized government with little money, a hamstrung police force and few enforceable laws? You get Somalia.
Biography
Michael Kanellos is editor at large at CNET News.com, where he covers hardware, research and development, start-ups and the tech industry overseas. He has worked as an attorney, travel writer and sidewalk hawker for a time share resort, among other occupations.
See more CNET content tagged:
stock market, government, law
These are the same citizens who beg for cradle-to-gave nanny
state and consult an attorney when the iPhone price drops by
$200? You must be joking.
examination. But then I bothered to challenge myself,
discovering that such cliches as he regurgitates didn't comport
with the best evidence, and adopted libertarianism.
Michael won't be comfortable reading libertarian writers, of
course, so he should start with a book by leftist professor
Gabriel Kolko, who decades ago exploded the myth that
businesses (especially big ones) dislike and don't benefit from
government regulation. it's called "The Triumph of
Conservatism".
http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-
Kolko/dp/0029166500/
ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4991948-3091812?
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192712396&sr=8-1
On a final note, the editor's over-generalization of limited government (you get Somalia?) shows just how weak the entire perspective is as a whole. Might the problems in Somalia be due to say, radical extremism and goverment corruption? Look out folks; you better not vote to limit your government. They're here to help.
Part of the problem is that people don't speak to each other anymore about actual policies and proposals; all public debate is filtered through a narrow set of talking points handed out by the two parties and special interest groups. The news media could help by looking beyond the he-said/she-said reporting they do that goes no further than explaining the talking points, but they're content to restrict themselves to just that.
We get the government we deserve, and people are so turned off by what's happening in Washington right now that they've just tuned out. What we really need is for people to re-engage. We need more citizen participation. It's discouraging that it's not happening, and our representatives are failing us.
they'll have more resources to come after us!
I wonder what the libertarians in that state will be shouting
about?
There are two big flaws in the libertarian argument: 1) They put
far too much faith in the elements they keep. screwed by s
powerful person or organization? Poisoned by a bad drug? Sue
them! Libertarian courts are always fair, honest and quick. Why?
because we want them to be.
2) The libertarian state sneers at security. "Nanny state."
Teenagers and college students could care a whiff about
security. But start raising a family,and suddenly you want to be
assured that the drugs for your kids are safe, and that they
won't find themselves playing next to a new paper mill.
Neal Boortz? The foulmothed talk-show host who sneers at
people earning minimum wage as losers? Who compared
Muslims to cockroaches? No thank you.
How, exactly, would this be any less dificult or costly?
On to another point: The fact is that there is no such thing as a completely free market. Even the most well-intentioned effort to create one would fail miserably in short order because it is in the nature of the sharks of the world to corner markets and rig the game. Conversely, there is no such thing as a perfectly-regulated market either. All there is is a the framework (usually provided by Governments) by which market regulation can change and adapt so as to serve the greatest good. It's messy, sometimes it's ugly. But, for the most part, it works.
If you truly find that having sensible laws and restricted government intrusion into your life are "a crock", perhaps you would find North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, or Iran to be more amiable to you? You seem to think "more is better" in both of those areas and I think you'll find the regulatory environments of those countries much more to your liking.
You say "We live on subsidies" as a reason to keep them, but it's really the exact opposite. We should not be a dependent economy based on tax-and-spend politics of our own federal government. If other countries want to subsidize their own industries, fine, that's their perogative, but America was built on the benefits and principles of free trade with no government interference, not from government entitlements to everyone. Libertarianism isn't just a principled stance, it's based on pragmatic history with plenty of evidence to support it.
Government regulation kills as much as it claims to save. Well-meaning regulation often defeats its own purpose, for example in 1988, the FDA took nine and a half months to approve Misoprostol, a drug that saves the lives of patients suffering from gastric ulcers. One observer has estimated that during the nine and a half months that the FDA?s review kept Misoprostol off the market, the drug could have saved the lives of 8,000 to 15,000 Americans. This drug was already available in 43 other countries during the testing process and saving lives.
In 1972, the FDA passed a law requiring child safety caps on many medications, which was supposed to keep kids from being poisoned by drugs like aspirin. But the caps are hard to get off, some people ? particularly older people ? leave them off, and some parents, feeling safer with the cap, leave the aspirin where kids can reach it. A joint study by the Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute found that this ?lulling effect? concluded that an additional 3,000 children have been poisoned by aspirin because of the regulation.
Now - do you think any Republican or Democrat is going to stand up against these laws? No. At least a Libertarian will regardless of people's naive, unresearched judgements against them. I suggest Michael starts researching first before going off on his rant.
Ron Paul is a great deal more intelligent and experienced that you
will likely ever be.
And even though he's just a little old man, he has balls bigger than
any of the other candidates just for the fact that he's been saying
what he's been saying. He's right - it's time for change.
Your view of Americans as a whole is really sad. You use the phrase, "America has also given birth to more chiselers than perhaps any nations on earth" twice in your monologue, with the implication that Americans are born to cheat. In reality, research shows that that is a HUMAN condition, not just an American one. Several social mechanisms exist to mediate this individual tendency: religious teachings, social mores, legal rules, the costs of being caught violating those rules, and the likelyhood of being caught violating them. The point I think most Libertarians take is that many laws in the U.S. today are not enforced consistently (which means they aren't effective), and that many laws are enforced only because they are a law, without consideration of the circumstances that determine the rightness or wrongness of the rule. And when you take into account rules being created by presidential whim and people being treated in a less than human manner, the rule of law becomes worthless.
Now I'm not an anarchist. Hell, my grandfather was nearly murdered by anarchists. Government regulation is good, but only in moderation. The point being is that there are a lot of Americans who beleive that we have passed that point of moderation. Just because someone beleives in maximum freedom with minimum regulation doesn't mean no regulation whatsoever.
I love your comment about laws opening opportunities. I would argue that beyond democratically voted on statues, most rules and regulations have been created for the express purpose of benefiting someone financially, usually the ones who propose the regulation. Which does lead to a form of government subsidizing. Can you say the Petroleum Industry? Why is the government paying subsidies to a group of companies that are posting higher than ever profits?
People can also be motivated by trustworthiness, loyalty, a clean-cut example, kindness, helpfulness, friendliness, courtesy, good cheer, thrift, bravery in the face of oppression, reverence and obedience toward a higher power. For every unreasonable person you can find, I can find a matching current or former boy scout or girl scout as a living example. You want to look for unreasonableness? Try looking at our government officials. Why is it that only one president of the U.S. was ever an Eagle Scout? And he wasn't even elected!
Sure we live in a world of grey. But neither an outright ban, nor total freedom of speech is in anyone's interests. And some restrictions on free speech are necessary for a functional society. Prudist desires to the contrary, we are a sexually active species and pornography fills a human need. While I don't particularly want to be slapped in the face with it at dinner time, it is a form of expression, and a form of art that canbe appreciated at times. I don't most music that I hear, but I'm not going to ban everyone from listening to what they like.
Tax law IS insane. The only people directly benefitting from it are people who can afford to hire accountants to find all the loop holes. People below the mean income level get zero benefit from it. A flat rate, or a simplified code will dig deeper into the pockets of people with money to invest, but nearly everyone of them agrees that there is a point where money ceases to matter except as a means of keeping score. Since these are also the people pushing for legislation to support their means of earning money, then it's only fair that they pay the brunt of the costs of the legislation.
Libertatianism doesn't mean no compromise. In fact, with fewer regulations to enforce a single mode of response, this should open up more opportunities to develop a compromise. And yes, there is a greater chance for the scum of the earth to pull one over on you.
I know of a country that had a small central government with several semiautonomous regional governments that had moderately, but clearly defined spheres of influence, the police force didn't exist as a profession, and the few laws there were were enforced by ordinary citizens grouped together. They didn't get Somalia, they got early America.
The only person who should be at fault for a bunk business is the person who manages/runs it, not its investors. So the llc rule is an acceptable libertarian policy.
The government should get involved with solving externalities if the free market can not, such as the carbon tax. But that's about it; subsidies should not be handed out because they are an inefficient use of resources.
If someone hurts you or your assets they should get punished, if you get pistol whipped for any reason you can seek restitution, its that easy.
When was the last time toys-R-us pulled a fast one on you? People have memory so they know not to purchase again from someone they have been cheated by. The only businesses that survive are the trustworthy ones. Also don?t assume flat tax is a libertarian idea because it is not. P.S a flat tax already exist its called the sales tax, were everyone pays the same amount for the products they buy, as a result you get ebay and amazon.com for thouse who want to dodge the tax.
Libertarians want a small decentralized government (not centralized) with little money, strong police force and strong laws, you don?t get Somalia you get prosperity. This is why the great economists of our time are libertarians: Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman and Fredrick von Muses, and Hayek. Could it be the greatest economic minds are wrong about what created a great economy?
Sincerely, John the economist
Poorly researched, poorly written, poorly supported.
How can this possibly
Mike the pundit might spend his time more productively by reading some real libertarian philosophy and economics, rather than bloviating on rumour and FUD. Primary sources are better than 'he said/she said' coming from liberals and neocons.
Of course, not all libertarians ARE libertarians. A pro-war libertarian is a contradiction in terms.
As for government regulation, it is to laugh. The SEC? That's the wonderful watchdog that approved the bizarre accounting practices of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm that brought you Enron.
Mike should also do some research on the origin of the Federal Reserve ~system~ and the IRS which is supposedly your government at work. Yeah. The Fed supposedly was born to prevent another Panic of 1907 or other instability of 'the market' but instead the Great Depression happened anyway.
Anyone might have thought early last year that no longer printing the M3 statistic -- money supply -- might have been a warning flag. The housing bubble was already starting to unravel, due to the 'creative investment vehicles'. Uh huh.
And when the disaster started to be known to the world generally, there were screams of 'regulation' and greedy speculators or ignorant borrowers. Yet 'asset securitization' was unrolled by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1970. Thanks, Big Gov. Over the next 36 years, lending practices became not only more lax but downright fraudulent. But who was minding the store? Not Alan Greenspan.
"Easy Al's" low interest rates were like throwing gasoline on a blaze to put out the fire.
Notice the parallels between Enron and the housing/credit crisis: no financial pundit had a bad word to say about "the smartest guys in the room" nor the housing boost to the economy before both fell in a heap. Now no one is saying 'my bad' but rather how did it happen?
Back on May 21, Ben the Barnacle said 'the sub-prime crisis is largely contained.' That was before he started running the printing presses to help Wall St. Along with the BoE and the ECB working more containment. And if you think inflation is low and so is unemployment, I have a bridge shaped like a coat hanger for sale.
by the IRS is used for basic human services, like roads,
infrastructure, etc. This is simply a myth that has been
propogated by the federal government and thier privateer
banking cronies on the "federal reserve board".
Yes, the "Federal Reserve System" is a private banking system
(central bank) and has been so since 1913 when Woodrow
Wilson unconstitutionally signed into law the Federal Reserve Act
(1913). The reason it is unconsitutional is that the 16th.
Amendment to the Constitution was NEVER ratified into law by
Congress as is required by the Constitution. The Constituion
forbids unaportioned taxes to be levied against private citizens.
For the real scoop, check out the non-partisan documentary by
Aaron Russo entitled "America, from freedom to fascism".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=-1656880303867390173&q=aaron
+russo&total=54&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plinde
x=0
The documentary offers a historically correct portrayal of the
formation and rise of the federal income tax as well as the
inception of the IRS. The fact of the matter is that personal
income tax is purely used to offset the deficit and only pays
interest on monies borrowed by the federal government to pay
for programs we can not afford. This is well documented in the
documentary.
Ron Paul is 'on the money' when he speaks about our "fiat
money system" and the real danger it is doing to this country.
FYI, although we now are a nation of automobiles, the roads
(and related infrastructure) are covered by gasoline tax and NOT
personal income tax. You need to check your facts and not
make base assumptions about something you clearly no nothing
about.
Get out and vote in the Primaries for Ron Paul...the ONLY true
Republican and Constitutionalist running for President! Ron Paul
is the only candiate who is willing to break the "business as
usual" attitude of every other candiate running for President of
the United States of America!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=-1656880303867390173&q=aaron
+russo&total=54&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plinde
x=0
As a practical matter, the income tax is law. Whether its a good law or not, can be discussed. But it is law, and there is no point in going into long history lessons.
Ron Paul doesn't run his campaigns like this...so buy a clue, friend.
The fiat money system also works fine. That's why every nation in the world has abandoned it. I used to like the gold standard, but I see one fatal flaw in it: gold is limited in supply. Also, the Constitution actually supports the fiat money system; Congress has the power to coin money on the credit of the United States.
Finally, do you know what fascism is? People throw around the word without knowing what it really means. Fascism is not levying taxes on the masses (in fact, Italian fascism opposed taxes. I don't know if this is true for German fascism). Fascism is an ideology (fascists of WWII were far-right, but today's fascists consider themselves centrists) that commands total obedience to the state and (usually) emphasizes nationalism to an extreme. There aren't any fascist countries today (but some countries do come close).
What he or she would do, is move the country in the right direction. Freedom is good, there are many areas where improvements can be made, before we have to decide to fire the last police officer!
Geez...libertarians are not anarchists...they believe in strong rule of law. The government should protect its borders, go after violent criminals, mint money, make treaties with foreign countries, etc. But its because the government has gone beyond its basic duties, that it pays little attention to those duties...and they are done so poorly.
Here is one simple step towards libertarianism...stop fighting against the people in a foreign civil war.
You're soaking in it.
The internet is libertarianism. And you love it.
Most liberals don't want to help the unfortunate, but rather they want the unfortunate helped. They don't want to write the check, the whole point is that it wouldn't be fair if they did it themselves, someone else needs to do it. Someone else needs to pay.
Oh they are so generous, but only with other people's money. Libertarians say, the government shouldn't do it, I should do it.
Libertarians believe in low taxes because they do not want to help the unfortunate. They would rather keep their money in their pockets. Liberals are willing to sacrifice a bit of their income to alleviate human suffering.
Libertarians say, "I'd rather hold on to my money than see it in the hands of the poor."
Remember, liberals pay taxes too, so they aren't exactly being generous with other people's money. They're paying the price too.
And before you decide to attack me as a "big government liberal," I do consider myself a libertarian. However, I consider liberals closer to the libertarian idea than those who brand themselves with the umbrella-term "libertarian."
Like Sun Microsystems' Co-Founder Scott McNealy said, a self-professed libertarian, he doesn't believe in anarchy. Libertarianism believes in a state that protects our basic rights, provides basic infrastructure, and military defense.
And I would hardly call the Roman Empire a "small government."
- put your money where your mouth is
- by esjatharvee October 20, 2007 5:40 PM PDT
- if libertarians are so big on charity, how about helping out? there are many projects making linux more handicap accessible. they all need money or people. most of all they need developers that work with the disabled to implement what the disable need, not that TABS think they need.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- okay
- by mrfinke October 30, 2007 9:15 PM PDT
- Those sound like very good projects. Do you have a link for more info?
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (47 Comments)projects (focus):
gnome accessibility (blind)
natlink/natpython (hand/arm rsi)
voice coder (programming using speech recognition)
wine (supporting speech recognition via NaturallySpeaking)
each of these project can help disabled people become independent. best kind of charity if you ask me.