how cute
The stages of libertarian denial. Right off the bat, a failure to classify the issue correctly. There is not a denial. There is a refusal. One who thinks that my refusal to want the government to do something is a denial is being disingenuous. We’re from different worlds. And, of course, libertarians do agree that problems exist. It’s that those problems are often the government.
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:25 am
Wow. A false premise and a conclusion not supported even by the false premise just in the first two sentences!
Over-generalizations and ridiculously broad examples for the rest.
His logic-fu is weak.
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Libertarians lose me when they say they would prefer private companies to take over the jobs of government. Really – Verizon has such great customer service, you want them setting up drunk driving checkpoints? You want a Chinese-run company set safety standards for your car and pharmaceuticals? The Corporation for Public Broadcasting should be empowered to make decisions about withholdings from paychecks? Pornography distributors in charge of sex ed in the schools?
If a libertarian says nobody should be doing thinks the government does now, that’s a starting point for a conversation. But any libertarian argument that boils down to having a private company do what the government is doing is a failure.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:45 pm
dustydog: You are falling into the same mental trap Caplan is in.
He assumes the eventual goal is going to be immediately implemented.
Privatization is best handled slowly. Roads are a good example. Lets start with a small step, like selling roads and sidewalks in a downtown core area to a downtown business association. No more panhandlers or abusive lunatics downtown, and the businesses there are now in charge of security and parking.
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Dustydog: To address your questions:
1 Why would drunk driving (or any other kind of) checkpoints be needed or even constitutional at all?
2 Why do we need the law setting safety standards for cars? If I want to buy a car with no airbags to save $$$, why should the law force them on me?
3 Why should there be withholding from paychecks in the first place? If business does what government does, it becomes pay as you go.
4 Why should there be public schools in the first place? If you want your kids in school, pay for it yourself and send them to the school of your choice.
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:03 pm
@Dustydog – A Chinese-owned auto company is already setting some standards. Volvo.
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:00 pm
So you read “denial” as “refusing to admit the truth” even though the author is explicit that he means it as “refusing to admit what others claim”, or as you put it “Refusal”.
All analogies break down somewhere. Here this economist says “Hey this pop psychology framework will help me illuminate something about the arguments we libertarians use against government involvement in x” and “all we have to do is use Merriam-Webster definition 1 of the word instead of Merriam-Webster definition 2, and we can make a mash-up with the ‘party-of-no’ meme, and well get lots of notice for a brief article that clearly explains 6 reasons why the government should not do things that can be done privately.
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Dustydog, the point you miss is that freemarkets allow choice. You cant choose your government service vendor. You dont like verizon service then dont use them, use a competitor. The market will correct bad products/service when people dont patronize them.
Besides, its always easy to dream up some condition that makes the libertarian ideas seem untenable or unpalatible. With government doing things we get to look around and experience untenable AND unpalatible.
December 3rd, 2010 at 6:12 am
Deregulation is not that great. Look at all the deregulated industries we have.
We used to have more choice in airlines when it came to flying from place to place. Now we have fewer airlines and actually less choice.
December 3rd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
“The market will correct bad products/services” is completely wrong. The market hasn’t corrected the governance of liberal states; it hasn’t corrected bad companies. The market will correct to a marginally-acceptable level of poor service, which is exactly what we have now from government. You won’t get free choice just by abolishing government; you’ll get a large armed organizations pushing you around exactly the way the government does now. Libertarianism won’t magically improve human nature; and human nature is to bully the weak.
Homeowner associations are a great example. You might own a home, an HOA forms around you, and the county gives them the power to take your property for not painting often enough. According to libertarians, it would be ok for the HOA to steal your house, as long as they hired the muscle themselves versus going through a government agency.
The majority of people don’t particularly care about the rules, and whether you are left alone. If you have the majority on your side, you’re fine either way. You can’t magically convince the majority that you should be left alone.
For example, you want a cheap car with no airbags or seatbelts. A company wants to sell you the car. InsuraCar, who you don’t do business with, says “don’t sell him that car; we don’t want him to have it because it isn’t good for our customers.” In my example, the car company refuses to sell you the car. You spitefully buy a car and take the airbags and seatbelts out. InsuraCar finds out and steals your car. The fundamental problem isn’t that our constitutionally-formed federal and state governments have too much power; it is that people by their human nature don’t want you to be free. Government forms spontaneously, to enslave and empower.