King of Creation said:
We are, however, talking about true Libertarianism, which has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. At all. In fact, in terms of economic principles, the Libertarians want a Free Market Economy, which is something that a socialist group would hate. A free market economy is one that is unregulated by the government: no "taxes, subsidies, regulation, or government provision of goods or services beyond simply the protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts."
So, to sum up the basic ideals behind the Libertarian party philosophy: "a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders."
And therein lies the problem King, with Libertarianism. On it's face it sounds good. Less state telling your what to do, less taxes on your income, more civil rights.
But ignoring the problem of taxation- without which the state cannot function, the problems are two-fold.
Markets are not created out of thin air. They require the overcoming of collective action problems thereby allowing people to meet and interact to achieve their economic ends. Many economists now realize that for a market to exist, at all, you need a state. It is the state that provides the institutional structure and rules that make markets viable. We assume that capitalism can grow on its own, but the truth is different. What we know of modern capitalism occurred primarily because of the industrial revolution and the role of the state in shaping that revolution.
States are inherently economic actors.
Thus states take different economic forms depending on the role of the state in shaping the economic markets or interaction. It is often the state that takes a central role in undertaking industrial policies in the first place. Why Asia's newly industrialized countries became the success they are, was because the states decided to purse economic policies that favored industrialization of export goods. Japans MITI is often seen as the prevailing model.
Without the intervention of the state, one essentially favors a status quo shaped by the relationships of power between different individuals. You let the balance of power within society rule- that usually takes economic forms.
One of the reasons the US was slow to incorporate economic rights- such as labor laws protecting women and children, the right of workers to strike and union, worker safety rules, was NOT because the state didn't enforce civil rights. It was because the notion of civil rights was shaped by those individuals in society that had the most economic power. At the turn of the century notions of "freedom of contract" meant that those individuals that lacked power to bargain with more economically powerful group where out of luck- unions, child labor law, unsafe health conditions, woman's legal rights- where something the state should not intervene in.
Remember, idea of civil rights are not written in stone, but change. What we may take for granted as a civil right today had to be fought for. It is often within the politics of the state that those battles occur, and in democracies- that happens in the courts and the legislature. Aside, this argument against "activist judges" ignores the fact that had it not been for the courts involvement in issues of the environment, there would have been no Clean Water or Clean Air Act. Had it not been for the willingness of the courts to end "seperate but equal" there would have been no Civil Rights Act. Had it not been for the court's willingness to defend the rights of women, women's rights would not be protected. It is often in the courts, where the determination of what are "Civil rights" under the constitution that the notion of civil rights in this country changes.
But what about social rights through other means of collective action- for example religion? Well note the relationship of the Christian right to the party that favors big business. Why? Because the state gives money to the church, because the church receives contributions from big business, and because church leaders are members of the elite (as are business). Thos interests often outweigh the church's commitment to it's own parish, the social concerns of those who go on Sundays. Alternative social forces can be bought out.
Secondly, the market doesn't take care of everything and proves woefully deficient in matters of social justice. For example, markets create "externalities" that are often seen in measurable terms by market calculations that affect people. One example is a pig farm. A person should have the right to harvest pigs for a living. The problem of the pigs is that they stink and make the neighbors nauseous, reducing property values and quality of life. Is that fair? Well we could argue that the property values of the neighbor should be compensated for their loss. But there are other costs to that neighbor that go unaddressed, primarily issues of quality of life. But again, to determine this the state needs to intervene.
Other issues that go unexamined- Poverty alleviation, social justice between ethnicities, education, the environment- these are issues that have often state has been forced to intervene in. Take for instance schools. If schools need to make money to support programs and teacher salaries, one way would be to sell more softdrinks and candy to students. THe costs- students become over-weight and have a greater likelihood of getting diabetes, parents pay more for dental costs, and the kids are denied a better diet that will have lasting effects on their heath.
Finally, because of the market's failure the state must intervene for social peace and the need sustain public order. In many countries around the world one critical issue of internal security is unemployment. THe greater the numbers of unemployed individuals the more likely you will have violence. Secondly, the problem of income disparities shows a clear correlation with levels of crime as well as state repression. For examples of that- watch the films Gangs of New York- for a examination of urban life in the US before the state gets involved in the market, or the film CIty of God, as an example of what happens when social issues go unaddressed.
The more employed, the more people have to work and don't have time to protest. The lower the income disparities, the more "equal" people see themselves and less likely they will act on social grievance. The less need for violence to sustain peace and order, the less police violence, the more peaceful and happy your state.
The situation is simply more complex. The slogan sounds good, but in many ways it a false hope, an idealized notion that probably couldn't exist.
This is not to argue that the state doesn't fuck things up. It does that often. But states are rarely wholly autonomous of social actors, but become the forums of politics that usually relate to the distribution of material wealth. That's the potential of democracy- that even the poor guy gets a chance to participate.
