My micro-rant against Libertarianism

[Mr. Scott]

I'm not sure if this was directed partially at me, but if so, it wasn't directed at the right guy. I agree with this kind of thinking and I think it is reasonable to tax people to pay for infrastructure and I think it's reasonable to tax people to fund programs that redistribute wealth like welfare or provide for the general good.

My arguments have been about how to accomplish this and why I think some government programs that appear to be helpful with respect to the goal of wealth redistribution are when all the consequences are taken into account in balance more harmful than good.

It wasn't directed to anyone in particular. Sure, government programs and policies need to be analyzed for hidden agendas, conflicts of interest, and unintended consequences. These analyses should be based on evidence, not ideology.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not sure if this was directed partially at me, but if so, it wasn't directed at the right guy. I agree with this kind of thinking and I think it is reasonable to tax people to pay for infrastructure and I think it's reasonable to tax people to fund programs that redistribute wealth like welfare or provide for the general good.

My arguments have been about how to accomplish this and why I think some government programs that appear to be helpful with respect to the goal of wealth redistribution are when all the consequences are taken into account in balance more harmful than good.

It's a basic political/economic problem: it is easy to show how a piece of legislation helps a particular group of people significantly and hard to show how that same law hurts many more people a little bit. Politically it can make sense to help out a lobby in a way that's detrimental to the overall economy if the harm is spread out enough that few people feel it is enough to spend effort opposing. The lobbyist has an incentive to get the legislation, while no one in particular has much to gain by opposing it. When a million lobbyists get bits of law written in their favor, the cumulative cost to the economy can be enormous, but no particular industry can be singled out as 'getting too much'. So we all pay a little more for, say, sugar and steel and corn, and everything made from them and it's a few cents here and there for individuals that adds up to billions of dollars of drag on the economy over time.

 

[davefoc]

It's a basic political/economic problem: it is easy to show how a piece of legislation helps a particular group of people significantly and hard to show how that same law hurts many more people a little bit. Politically it can make sense to help out a lobby in a way that's detrimental to the overall economy if the harm is spread out enough that few people feel it is enough to spend effort opposing. The lobbyist has an incentive to get the legislation, while no one in particular has much to gain by opposing it. When a million lobbyists get bits of law written in their favor, the cumulative cost to the economy can be enormous, but no particular industry can be singled out as 'getting too much'. So we all pay a little more for, say, sugar and steel and corn, and everything made from them and it's a few cents here and there for individuals that adds up to billions of dollars of drag on the economy over time.

One of the purposes of this forum is to discuss things, but sometimes it is just nice to read something that I agree so completely with.

 

[Morrigan]

There's a great deal of evidence that collectivism doesn't.

Wot? Ever heard of countries like Sweden, Finland, Canada?

I once asked Michael Shermer, who was on his book tour for the one less than skeptical book he's written extolling the virtues of pure Libertarianism

What book is that? I've been reading Why People Believe Weird Things lately, and he is so critical of objectivism and Rand (slightly different than libertarianism, I know, but still very correlated) that this surprises me.

How is asking you to explain your POV "a way to dismiss my entire argument (and all of Objectivism) withotu addressing the argument?"

Really, was it too much to ask?

Yep. I mean, why would you want to explain your own point of view when you can just refer to someone else who has done your thinking for you? You gotta read the literature, man!

(Anyone else reminded of scientologists and their refusal to discuss their views and their insistance that you gotta read Dianetics to really understand them...? )