Salon’s Seven Misconceptions About Libertarianism

Libertarian Theory, The Left
By / / 6 Comments / 4 minutes of reading
Share

Lately it has become fashionable for political partisans to bash libertarianism. These “critiques” are vacuous and do nothing but demonstrate that the authors haven’t bothered to do basic research about what libertarians believe and why.

A recent example of this is Salon’s list of 7 strange libertarian ideas. Every single one misses the mark and requires only a limited response. More in depth information on these issues can easily be found with Google.

  1. “Parents should be allowed to let their children starve to death.”

    2. First off, most libertarians don’t actually think this. The issue is a strawman. Second off, even the people who believe that parents have no obligations to their children also believe that other people should be allowed to take custody of the neglected kids and care for them.

  2. “We must deregulate companies like Uber, even when they cheat.”

    3. Libertarians don’t think taxis should be regulated either. So the idea that it’s unfair that Uber isn’t regulated while taxis are cuts the other way for us. Nor does libertarian opposition to regulation imply approval of Uber interfering with Lyft’s business operations. Rather, libertarians think that violations of terms of service should be private and not state matters.

  3. “We should eliminate Social Security and Medicare.”

    4. These are massive transfers of wealth from the young and poor to the old and rich. We oppose them b/c we oppose intervention and wealth transfers (and the state in general). Of course the practical way of getting rid of them does it in a way that phases them out without leaving the poor who do depend on them hanging.

  4. “Society doesn’t have the right to enforce basic justice in public places of business.”

    5. We believe that people have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn’t involve using aggression against others. That doesn’t mean that we think racism is okay, it just means that we don’t think that a civilized response to racism is threatening to shoot the racist or to lock him in a cage against his will unless he does what we want.

    Furthermore the argument Salon gives is wrong and circular. Wrong b/c the constitution doesn’t apply to private citizens and so private acts of discrimination can’t be “unconstitutional” (and for most of the country’s history, the constitution was read as preventing this kind of legislation). Circular b/c you can’t say it’s “against federal law” when the argument is about whether such a federal law should exist in the first place.

    …

    Salon’s Seven Misconceptions About LibertarianismRead More »

Salon’s Seven Misconceptions About Libertarianism Read Post »

Religious Conduct of Commerce: Unwinding the Hobby Lobby Case

Classificationism, Legal System
By / / 2 Comments / 7 minutes of reading
Share

There is a lot of confusion surrounding the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Hobby Lobby. The libertarian perspective has been discussed elsewhere, but what the Court actually did is not being described accurately despite the fact that they helpfully include a “syllabus” summarizing each ruling for the public. Apparently, some people, including many reporters, can’t be bothered to read even the summary. Therefore in the interest of clarity, I will try to give a brief overview of the case and of the majority’s reasoning in their decision. For the sake of brevity, citations are omitted because they can be found in the actual decision.

First some background. Contrary to what some people have claimed, objections to general laws on religious grounds do excuse you from having to follow them. This wasn’t always the case. In the early 90s, the Supreme Court ruled that “neutral, generally applicable laws may be applied to religious practices even when not supported by a compelling governmental interest” because allowing someone to object on the basis of religion to such laws “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” In response, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), overturning the Supreme Court’s decision and allowing challenges to neutral laws that burdened religious exercise. Under the RFRA, “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” The people affected by such a burden are entitled to exemption from the rule unless the government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person– (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

Many people have said that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), i.e. “Obamacare”, requires employers’ group health plans to provide coverage of contraceptives. This is not correct. The ACA merely requires the plans to cover “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements.” Congress left it up to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to decide specifically what types of care this includes. When the HRSA issued regulations specifying what was required, they mandated that all FDA approved contraceptive methods be covered. They also provided for a religious exemption for religious organizations and non-profit religious corporations. Per the requirements of the RFRA, they apparently would also provide a similar exception to unincorporated for-profit businesses operating according to the owner’s religious principles. They did not provide an exception for incorporated for-profit businesses with corporate policies stating that the businesses would be run according to religious principles. Importantly, granting this exemption does not mean that the employees of these organizations will not have contraceptive coverage. Rather, it means that the insurance companies and ultimately the government will provide this coverage at no cost to the employer or the employees.

Now for the case. …

Religious Conduct of Commerce: Unwinding the Hobby Lobby CaseRead More »

Religious Conduct of Commerce: Unwinding the Hobby Lobby Case Read Post »

On the Austrian Theory of Money, a Reply to David Graeber

(Austrian) Economics, History
By / / 36 Comments / 8 minutes of reading
Share

David Graeber and Robert Murphy have been debating the validity of the monetary regression theory.  They seem to be talking past one another.  Graeber is assuming that Austrian theory agrees with neo-classical theory in areas where it does not, and Murphy is assuming that Graeber is substantially more familiar with Austrian ideas than he seems to be.  To clear up the confusion, we need to take a step back and start at the beginning.

…

On the Austrian Theory of Money, a Reply to David GraeberRead More »

On the Austrian Theory of Money, a Reply to David Graeber Read Post »

On the Casey Anthony trial

Legal System
By / / 1 Comment / 1 minute of reading
Share

Had they charged her with the appropriate crime (negligent homicide), they probably would have won the case.  But apparently sending her to jail for many years wasn’t enough; they wanted her dead.  So, they went for murder despite having no proof of premeditation.  The judge should have dismissed the murder charge after the prosecution rested; that he didn’t is a travesty in itself.

There is absolutely no evidence for murder in this case, and anyone who thinks you should convict someone of a crime they didn’t commit because the state failed to charge them with a crime that they did doesn’t deserve to call themselves a libertarian.

On the Casey Anthony trial Read Post »

Continued confusion over the “rights” of corporations

Business, Legal System, Libertarian Theory, The Basics, The Left
By / / 5 Comments / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Voters in Madison, Wisconsin recently approved a measure asserting that corporations do not have constitutional rights.

The measure correctly asserts that only individuals have rights.  But then it proceeds to state that corporations do not.  This is collectivism at its finest.  A corporation doesn’t act.  People act.  Although the “corporation” doesn’t have rights as an entity, each and every owner of the corporation does.  The owners exercise those rights by having agents (the management) act on their behalf.  When we speak of a corporation acting, this is merely an abstraction from the individuals involved.  As Stephan Kinsella has explained, corporations are nothing more than a series of contracts enabling a large number of people to work together toward common goals.

This resolution, though purporting to support individual rights, is in reality opposed to such rights because it claims that these rights somehow disappear when the individuals who have them choose to use them in a coordinated manner.

…

Continued confusion over the “rights” of corporationsRead More »

Continued confusion over the “rights” of corporations Read Post »

Scroll to Top