Almost Classical

If socialists and statists wanted to damage limited government and republicanism they could not have chosen better men as Manchurians than Trump and Brownback. Trump is the poster child for crony capitalism and everything against the ideals of a free and open society you could imagine. Open: as in trade, borders, tolerance, speech.... Brownback apparently never completed a serious economics course and certainly never read Adam Smith, Hayek, or Milton Friedman. You balance budgets with mildly progressive taxes that recognize the commons must be funded or the middle-class  will revolt. (Smith noted all rebellions in English politics are from the monied classes, not the bottom.) Low taxes are ideal. As low as the community will tolerate, ideally. Low and fair, rewarding hard work. But you cannot cut taxes without a plan to determine what should be funded and why. In my ideal world, only first-responders and a handful of other priorities are funded through taxes. As little a...

Tonight, someone generalized so broadly about libertarianism that I was shaking in anger. The notion that libertarians do not care about other people is beyond insulting. It is precisely because we do care about human rights that we want government powers and government intrusions limited. People trusting the government any more than they trust corporations will either be disappointed or choose to willfully ignore the failures of government. And government fails spectacularly on a constant basis. It scares me that an increasing number of people are okay with "socialism" or "communism" and have nothing but contempt for classical liberalism. They blindly associate libertarian ideals with crony capitalism and a lack of compassion. Most of us in the "classical liberal" school of thought are not Libertarians with a capital-L as in the Libertarian Party. The party, for one thing, does not reflect the Austrian economists much less Adam Smith. The Libertar...

We will always have articles accusing "libertarianism" of being everything from "fascist" (huh?) to "right-wring" to "juvenile." Those advocating for classical liberalism will be linked to racists, plutocrats, crony capitalists, and other perversions of limited government and negative rights. (I still hate the "negative" rights label, inherently a rhetorical device that insults various philosophical and political schools of thought.) When I read "Somalia is a libertarian paradise," I know the comment poster is either ignorant or intentionally lying. The basics of classical liberalism include: Rule of law, with an egalitarian legal system; Enforced contracts, protecting parties in transactions; Property rights beginning with the individual's ownership of self; Limited, effective, and reliable government. Now, for the sad reality that libertarians in the United States need to address: there are horrible people who...

I tell my students, learn to tell a story about economics, not merely to report statistics. This is why: Taking On Adam Smith (and Karl Marx) - NYTimes.com : Academic economics is so focused on getting the econometrics and the statistical interpolation technique correct, he said, “you don’t really think, you don’t dare to ask the big questions.” American economists too often narrow the questions they examine to those they can answer, “but sometimes the questions are not that interesting,” he said. “Trying to write a real book that could speak to everyone meant I could not choose my questions. I had to take the important issues in a frontal manner — I could not escape.”  He hated the insularity of the economics department. So he decided to write large, a book he considers as much history as economics, and one that is constructed to lead the general reader by the hand. He is also not afraid of literature, finding inspiration in the descriptions of society in the realist novels ...

The following was posted to the comments section of a very old blog post: The Top Ten Reasons I Hate Capitalism: 10: Kim Kardashian 9: Vast economic inequality destroys democracy 8: Survival of the fittest (I'm definitely not among the fittest) 7: Donald Trump 6: The Attitude of the Fittest toward the Unfit 5: Reality TV 4: Walmart 3: Mark Zuckerberg 2: It appeals to the worst aspects of human nature And the #1 reason I hate capitalism: I am not Bill Gates! Envy! Perhaps that's what it comes down to. That's what the conservatives and defenders of Capitalism would have us believe. Or perhaps there is just something inherently unfair and unjust about it. Yes, it is easy to dislike some of the wealthy in our supposedly capitalist nation. And the easy response is that the United States is not a purely capitalist nation, certainly not as Adam Smith envisioned capitalism and not in the sense that the Austrian economists believed in and promoted either a minima...

The ongoing attempts to discredit "libertarianism" and "classical liberalism" are almost laughable, if so many smart people didn't uncritically accept the rhetoric: While libertarianism as a philosophy is superficial, juvenile nonsense, particular libertarian proposals are sometimes worthwhile on their merits. — from Michael Lind at Salon.com; http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/ Again, Lind conflates the Libertarian Party with libertarian and classically liberal ideals. The ideas he argues are "libertarian" are not, they are the ideas of a political party or a specific politician (Ron Paul), neither of which I consider representative of my ideals or the ideals of the thinkers I admire. First, for me "classical liberalism" means one thing: freedom from government interference in my life; freedom from the threat of force and coercion to behave according to some majority idea of what is "best" for me. My liber...

Intelligent people, who should know better, are once again attacking "libertarianism" and "classical liberalism" by misrepresenting, selectively quoting, and personalizing a theory. In Salon, co-founder of the New America Foundation Michael Lind, offers a nonsensical critique of libertarianism by asking "The" question classical liberals cannot answer: The question libertarians just can't answer http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/ If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it? BY MICHAEL LIND; TUESDAY, JUN 4, 2013 12:17 PM EDT The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne, Jr., joins in, repeating the same nonsense. Libertarianism's Achilles' heel http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-libertarianisms-achilles-heel/2013/06/09/4dfd3c9c-cf8c-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: June 9 For balance, I also recom...

Some people assume, incorrectly, that I am a "supply-side" believer. I am not. I'm neither demand-side (Keynesian) nor supply-side (Chicago School) in my general beliefs about economics. Ah, and in there we find a problem with economics: beliefs are part of the complexity. The Austrian School of economics is more laissez-faire. While I find the supply-side arguments less troubling than traditional Keynesian models, I would rather embrace the free-market as much as possible. More Adam Smith than Friedman, and certainly more Hayek than Laffer. Economist Roger Garrison has said there is a word for politicians embracing Austrian Economics: losers. Keynesian models are demand-based, with the belief that government is the ultimate creator of demand. This is nice and simple to sell to voters, because Keynesian economics offers a solution to downturns: the government will bail us out, somehow. Most voters, not being in the entrepreneurial community or investment class, do re...