It is just so far away from the strident ideology of the [neocon] ... right.
I totally disagree. Neocons have never been opposed to corporate welfare. I'd argue that neoconservatism has much more in common with national socialism than it does with libertarianism. (This is not an intentional call to Godwin's law. I really think that the policy comparison is legitimate.) The only reason that the Bush administration has given lip-service to libertarian tenets is to hang onto the votes of the oldsters.
This is exactly what I was getting at (and didn't find the time to respond to Tony) that, to me, both parties are 95% in agreement. Both parties believe in big government interference in the lives of individuals and organizations -- they only differ in exactly how and why to interfere. Nobody, with the exception of Ron Paul I guess, is talking about the validity of this basic premise. There is *nothing* libertarian about either major party.
I also find it amusing that those on the Democratic side complain about "neocon" bailouts of banks, but generally tend to support nationalization of the health care system. That is the *exact* same position, merely applied to different areas. That's why I feel the two are 95% identical. Whether you nationalize banks or health care is a stupid point. Whether or not to allow free moral agents to participate in choice (whether in banking or health care) and keep the fruits of their labor is a much more important debate. Unfortunately, it's a point that both parties agree upon -- they agree we are too stupid to be entrusted with such decisions.
The whole problem with the banks now has to do with allowing massively leveraged positions. If you're going to lend someone money, you should be required to assume the risk of a default. It's not OK to lend money and take the interest, but then have us all foot the bill if the loan goes into default. Regulation can decrease allowed leverage multipliers, but it won't restore prudence, because prudence only exists in a world of self-responsibility.
The sinister thing about government taking care of everyone, whether that's national health care, smoking laws, war on drugs, or propping up big banks is that it deprives people of the opportunity to become a self-responsible, autonomous human being. Why learn self-discipline, prudence and autonomy when Big Brother is going to take care of you? Being a free man means being free to make some big mistakes and being held accountable for the results.
I'm not a "Big L" libertarian because I believe that we need to address systemic bias of opportunity for people. I also have been persuaded that the "Invisible Hand" does not act benevolently; market participants do not have an incentive to protect the market mechanism itself -- that requires regulation. But I do agree that we should be guided the principle that more freedom tends to be the answer.
Previous Topic
Index
