Almost Classical

In my recent defenses of "libertarianism" and classical liberalism, I have stressed that classical liberalism cannot be reduced to the economics of market capitalism. Although I happen to embrace Austrian economic theories and basic capitalism, I do not assume that capitalism is the only way to promote freedom. Corporatism and crony capitalism certainly do not promote or protect freedom. While personal freedom and individual sovereignty delineate libertarian philosophical principles, there is no single "right" way to pursue these aims. I happen to believe that Austrian economists were more likely to be correct about social and political issues than many other thinkers, but if I don't consider other views then I might overlook an even better path towards freedom. Libertarian socialism is a utopian philosophy, certainly, but it should be considered when we ask, "What systems promote individual freedom?" This raises questions about what is "f...

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...

Last week when Paul Krugman debated Joe Scarborough, the economist accused Scarborough of "ad hominem" attacks when confronted with his own past statements. What bothers me most about Krugman's charge is that he is often guilty of name-calling and hyperbole. Krugman's disdain for his opponents is cheered by like-minded progressives, but isn't this no better than the name calling on talk radio or on the Web? http://www.politicalruminations.com/2012/10/a-collection-of-15-quotes-about-paul-ryan-and-the-ryan-plan-by-economist-paul-krugman.html The most cited line from Krugman about Ryan is actually borrowed: As usual, Ryan makes me think of Ezra Klein's old line about Dick Armey: he's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. — http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/delusions-of-mobility/ I wish we could acknowledge that our "opponents" in politics, economics, philosophy, or any other discipline are not evil. We di...

One of the challenges I face as an advocate for Austrian / libertarian / classical liberal economic and politic ideals is that many of my students — and even some colleagues in the humanities — mistakenly assume that there are three basic economic models, represented by the icons Marx, Keynes, and Friedman. Sadly, most people don't know the Austrian School of economics, and when they do know a little the assumption is that Austrian adherents represent something of an outer ring around the Chicago School. Milton Friedman, thanks to his books and a PBS series, is the best known of the "supply-side" economists and the Chicago School. He came to represent the rejection of Keynesian economics to right-leaning politicians in the United States. Of course, the entire left/right and liberal/conservative dichotomy is false, since in many ways left-leaning politicians had become the defenders of the status quo — the welfare state. True innovation seemed to belong to the "rig...