There are many common threads between Liberals and Libertarians, such as the desire for personal liberties; but the areas where they differ are somewhat significant. In a nutshell, Liberals are passionate about personal liberties such as freedom of speech; but they tend to have little concern for our economic liberties. Generally they will turn a blind eye to the loss of property rights, if their ends are achieved in the process.
Liberals stood by while the health care bill was rammed through Congress, taking away our ability to choose how and where we spend our own money and forcing us to purchase health insurance from the very insurance cartels they claimed to be opposed to. All of this, despite the fact that, when implemented on a state level in Massachusetts, their program failed miserably; raising premiums and claim denial rates far above what they were prior to the reforms.
Liberals supported Cap and Trade legislation, which taxes and regulates virtually every single aspect of our lives, by attaching a tax to the generation of Carbon Dioxide. This also invites government inspectors into our homes, to make sure that we’re using “government approved” designs for everything from our appliances, to light bulbs, windows and insulation.
When faced with conflicting opinions on humanity’s contribution to climate change they parrot the Al Gore stance that the debate on climate change is finished; pretending that everyone who matters has voiced their opinion and they have all unanimously favored their position that humanity is the primary cause of changes in our climate.
They are even going so far as describing dissenters as “climate denialists,” using the same kinds of ad-hominem attacks used against individuals who have a critical view of the historical accuracy of the generally accepted view of the Holocaust.
One of the fundamental differences I find between Libertarians and Liberals, is the Liberals’ faith and trust in the national government to tax, redistribute wealth and regulate enterprise. All of which are based on enormously flawed social and economic theories, which history has shown, with countless examples, to create widespread poverty and destroy capital formation.
- Excessive taxation/regulation helps to create the very poverty they seek to eliminate, by making small businesses less competitive and more encumbered. These are the very businesses individuals would have jobs with, thus keeping them off the dole.
- Redistribution of wealth inherently has a trickle up effect, with the successful middle class entrepreneur being robbed by the redistribution and advantages given to large organizations in the process. The redistribution rarely even touches the very wealthy, because they tend to have their wealth structured in trusts and other vehicles which shield them via loopholes in the code. In fact it benefits the wealthy because the government spends what they have taken on their crony corporatist friends.
- The government has a terrible record for regulating just about anything. Typically when the government sets out to “regulate” something, it only means that the legislators are going to write regulations which are detrimental to small enterprises; while the lobbyists busy themselves crafting loopholes for anyone in larger enterprises who can afford them. These regulations inherently damage the fairness of the business environment in favor of large businesses who can afford to either purchase a loophole or absorb the increased cost of adopting the changes.
The financial reform bill is a wonderful example of Liberal “regulation” of problem corporations.
source: seeking alpha
I posted an 11-page summary of Senator Dodd’s financial reform bill yesterday.
After receiving input from one of the top experts on credit rating agencies and various other smart people, I have now formed an opinion about Dodd’s bill.
Specifically, Dodd’s bill – while sounding good – is really an all-out attempt to save the current, broken system.
Dodd’s bill contains a number of concepts and catch-phrases that sound like reform. But the bill would actually:
- Keep the current Federal Reserve system, even though it is a wholly-failed system (see this, this and this). True, the bill would take away some of the Fed’s regulatory oversight powers, but the Fed has never used them anyway, so it is really maintaining the status quo
- Keep the current NRSRO credit rating system – maintaining Moody’s, S&P and Fitch as a government-endorsed rating monopoly – even though that is a wholly-failed system
- While saying it “ends too big to fail”, the bill would actually make sure that attempts to immediately break up the giant insolvent black holes dragging our economy down – such as Senator Sanders’ bill – will be killed
We can go on and on, as the bill – while using a lot of nice language – attempts to prop up just about every aspect of the current system, while appointing (“trust us, we’re different”) regulators to oversee things. It does nothing to try to prevent future forms of looting (which Congressmen Grayson, Clay and Miller attempted to do in their bill).
But we cannot be sure that such regulators won’t be subject to the same regulatory capture as all of the current regulators have suffered. Or that Senator Dodd has suffered, for that matter.
Only by taking away monopoly power from the too big to fails, and the NRSROs, and the Fed can we ever have a stable economy.
In addition, the economy cannot recovery until trust is restored in the financial system, and trust will not be restored unless the fraud behind the financial crash is prosecuted. Dodd’s bill ignores past fraud.
I also find it interesting and even comical to see that Bill Maher fancies himself a libertarian.
“…Ironically, Bill Maher claims himself to be a Libertarian. Smoking pot and bashing President Bush alone do not make you a Libertarian. It takes strong convictions and faith in the concept of Liberty to stick to Libertarian principles in a town like Ancient Rome (that I sometimes refer to as modern day Washington D.C). Dr. Paul has proven the mettle by proving his loyalty for Libertarian principles while surviving the cut-throat D.C atmosphere for over three decades…”
Here’s an interesting excerpt from a Bill Maher show, where he voiced his stance on others who do not share his views on Cap & Trade.
“Shut the fuck up while I slap your face for making noise! Now pass the cap-and-trade law, you stupid bitch, and repeat after me, ‘global warming is real.’” [applause]
Maher’s quote speaks volumes of the Liberal hubris associated with global warming. I have seen this sentiment echoed by a variety of liberal voices; few of which seem to be interested in having a genuinely scientific debate on this phenomena.
It’s very difficult to have a discussion with someone who is so violently opposed to even the notion of questioning their views. I’ve often found it quite difficult to discuss politics and often science with die-hard Liberals. They tend to fancy themselves the hero of the common man; but most of their solutions are superficial and actually hurt the common man whom they are so concerned with helping.
If more Liberals would just look into things, deeper than the phony partisan rhetoric, I think their movement would be much more effective at achieving their ends. They need to understand that there are more than two views to every issue; it isn’t just Democrat or Republican. There are often hundreds of possible solutions; while only two are seen as viable by the controlled left-right dialectic.
Getting caught up in the left-right dialectic is the road to folly; because it keeps you from realizing the wide range of alternative possibilities which are available to solve problems. Solutions which don’t necessarily require more government programs, rules and regulations. Perhaps, god forbid, solutions which are actually constitutional and preserve, not only personal liberties; but also economic liberties.