I think it should be clarified that the American term “libertarianism” basically means unbridled capitalism, and that this is in stark contrast to the more traditional European sense of the word.
While in Europe libertarians are socialists, American libertarians claim to be anarchists – in spite of the fact that the capitalism they support relies on extreme government intervention to survive.
One of the many problems with free market capitalism is that, where capital is privately controlled, people have to rent themselves out in order to survive. There is no free contract; a choice cannot be freely made when the alternative is starvation.
Moreover, a society founded on the principles of American libertarianism would self-destruct; it would be a society so full of hatred that no one would want to live there. There would be no roads, because no one would see a reason why he should cooperate in building a road he will never use, and the people who would want to build such roads would charge others to use it. And then the people who don’t own cars but don’t want to breathe polluted air will take motorists to court to litigate it.
And how much would one have to pay for garbage disposal? Or would they even pay? How many people do you think would use public garbage cans or restrooms if they had to pay to do so? What about parks? You would have to pay to walk your dog through Audubon Park, to go for a jog, to sit on a bench to study, or even just to cut through. Yeah, that sounds like a fun place to live – and by fun I mean miserable.
Libertarians use Adam Smith the way religious terrorists use sacred texts to justify violence against unbelievers. The University of Chicago publishes a bicentennial edition of Smith, but distorts the text because Smith was actually opposed to all the idiotic principles now associated with his name.
George Stigler’s introduction to “The Wealth of Nations” is diametrically opposed to Smith’s text on point after point. Smith is somehow famous for allegedly thinking that division of labor is a great thing even though in reality he clearly states that in any civilized society the government is going to have to intervene to prevent division of labor from simply destroying people.
Finally, there is not a single record in history of any country developing successfully through adhering to “free-market” principles. In the United States there has always been extensive state intervention in the economy, from high protectionist tariffs set up to keep out British goods to huge public subsidies set up to advance industry and technology via the Pentagon and NASA. The United States has always had the highest protectionist tariffs in the world and it must be noted that the way the free market really works is that tax payers are forced to pay corporate capital costs, sometimes as high as 25 percent.
Just look at how the steel industry has survived: by restricting foreign imports, destroying labor unions to drive down wages, and placing massive tariffs on foreign steel. If market forces had been allowed to function, the United States would no longer have an automobile, microchip, computer or electronic industry, because they would all have been wiped out by Japan. And it was the government that closed off U.S. markets and poured in huge amounts of public funds.
The free market ideology is a weapon against the domestic population, because it argues against social spending, and it destroys the poor abroad by making them follow strict rules and then robbing them blind. The free-market ideology is highly theoretical, completely unethical, totally flawed and has no practical application in the real world.
