The Case against Libertarianism

by Madeleine Kando

As part of an on-going series on economic inequality in America, PBS NewsHour's economics correspondent Paul Solman asked Libertarian Lawyer Richard Epstein: 'Does U.S. Economic Inequality Have a Good Side?'

According to Epstein, a clear advantage is that it creates an incentive to produce wealth and innovation. He gives Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as examples of people who have created products whose value to society far outweighs the compensation they have received.

When asked about attempts to raise tax rates on higher income, Epstein said that it would stifle innovation and affect the production of goods. (Would Steve Jobs not have created the Ipod if the tax rate on his company had been higher? I don’t think so. Saying that Jobs was in it just for the money isn’t very nice, especially after Jobs' post-mortem ascendancy to semi-sainthood.)

The interview started me on a soul-searching journey because everything that Epstein said sounded off-key. It made me wonder what kind of person would come to the conclusions that greater economic inequality creates more overall welfare? It certainly doesn't seem to apply to our current situation.

To a libertarian, property is sacred, any government is bad, capitalists are noble heroes and the poor are pampered good-for-nothings. They place 'liberty' of the individual and the protection of the 'free market' above all else.

Any outcome of the market is morally right, whatever the consequences for society. They call it Social Darwinism. But Darwin’s laws are valid for biology, not for societies. All of human history represents man’s gradual emancipation from the laws of the jungle. It goes by the name of 'progress'. Social Darwinism is a bad idea.

And this is just the beginning of the inconsistencies in the Libertarians' philosophy. In the free market, the individual doesn't have any 'liberty'. If I, as an individual, am boycotting the consumption of meat, cows and pigs will still be slaughtered. Libertarians are against any kind of collectivism, the individual rules. But the market itself is, be definition, collectivist, and libertarians submit themselves to the autocracy of the free market.

Libertarians are for political freedom, no government interference. But they have no problem asking for government protection of the free market against terrorist attacks and internal Occupy Wall Street revolts.

If there were no government, what would libertarians protest against? The dangerous aspect of libertarian politicians like Ron Paul is that they propose a political alternative that can never be tested for its supposed merits. Government will always be there, in some form or other. They attack a system that is obviously not perfect but at least exists in the real world.

There is no nuance or logic to their single-minded attack on government. Society is complex and it needs many institutions to distribute power equally so that no one will monopolize and abuse that power. A free market without other institutions to keep it in check will abuse its power. The food industry will poison us, the health care industry will make us sick by denying coverage and businesses will create hazardous products.

What is most distasteful to me in the Libertarian world view is its lack of compassion and sense of social justice. The rich do not need help or protection. They don't need advocates like Ron Paul and Epstein. Libertarians are like snotty teenagers who feel entitled to their affluence, owing nothing to the community they were born into. They have never visited slums in India, or seen the raging famine in Africa. They are spoiled brats.

Epstein ended his libertarian interview on PBS by quoting Lincoln: "You do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor" (which, by the way, Lincoln never said).

I would like to end this essay by quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. leave comment here

Much of the content of this post was inspired by an excellent essay written by Mark Rosenfelder: 'What's wrong with Libertarianism?'