I wrote a post on “Why I am a Weak Libertarian” about my view that government ought to generally favor freedom. This is to be contrasted with Strong Libertarianism, the view that government ought to always favor freedom except in cases where it has to stop those using force. The most prominent person to articulate this view, in recent times, is Ayn Rand. Ironically, she is the downfall of her own ideology. After much kicking and screaming, Rand agreed to accept Social Security in her old age, because she would have risked bankruptcy had she not. Her high-minded ideology of selfishness and “altruism as a basic evil” went right into the trash can when she ran into the hard reality of old age. Actions speak louder than words. Her actions ring full praise of some reasonable socialistic systems we have like Social Security, even if her lips didn’t.That’s the problem with Strong Libertarianism. It just isn’t reasonable to keep government out of everything, even when the government has the capacity to do great good, as it has with Social Security. Though Social Security has some big budget problems that we are going to have to solve, the good that it does by allowing older people enough to get by outweighs the problems and expenses we’ll have to pay by a long shot.
You’ll often hear Libertarians like John Stossel saying that government regulations ought to be stripped down to nearly nothing, that these mainly do nothing but inhibit freedom and don’t keep us safe. To them, any regulation on behavior beyond those that obviously inflict harm on others should not be created. Let the free market be free, no restriction except “don’t use force.” Does that philosophy work? To answer this, I’d like to quote some excerpts from the New York Times article about former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, and how reacted when his policies flopped and caused the housing crash:
…[T]hree years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.
“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”
I rest my case.
