Ann Coulter - I predicted this

http://www.thedailybell.com/2507/Ann-Coulter-Bashes-Libertarians

Daily Bell has a pretty good response to Ann Coulter's criticism of libertarianism. Last year, as libertarianism was making news, I predicted that Republicans and Democrats will end up agreeing on at least one thing -- libertarians are wacky and bad for those who promote a strong, interventionist State. The difference between Right statists and Left statists is how they want government to intervene.

Coulter's comments on libertarianism reveal that she has not studied libertarian thought, and she has listened only to Washington insider "libertarians/liberaltarians" or she just accepts the cartoon versions. I've always admired Coulter's quick wit and courage to stand up to modern liberal pressure, and she is not one of the ones among conservatives I thought would attempt to marginalize libertarianism. By her charge that libertarians want no government at all, she's either intentionally twisting libertarian thought or is ignorant of libertarian thought. This is disappointing.

I suppose statism runs even deeper than I've suspected. I don't think the limited government conservatives understand very well what "limited" government means.

So, what is neoliberalism?

In Richard Peet's book, Unholy Trinity, he writes:

    The main opposition to Keynesianism came eventually not from the external threat of communism, as most histories have it, but from internal movements for "reform" started by neoliberals. Neoliberalism is an entire structure of beliefs founded on right-wing, but not conservative, ideas about individual freedom, political democracy, self-regulating markets and entrepreneurship.

Peet goes on to relate neoliberalism to classical liberalism, and justifies the "neo" by saying the neoliberals are applying classical liberal principles to modern circumstances, calling for deregulation and privatization of government programs. Then Peet relates neoliberalism to the ideas of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.

Peet is describing the libertarian position -- limited government and a free market, but then Peet goes on to describe the actions of neoliberalism as anything but libertarian -- he writes about coercive actions of States to rig the economic game and enrich favored corporations. Peet is confusing classical liberalism (libertarianism) with State capitalism, corporatism and just plain American style statism in a mixed economy. Peet denounces libertarian ideas by assigning to them all the ills of government/corporate enmeshment.

The purpose of Peet's book is to reveal the rigged global economic game designed by the power elite within the IMF, World Bank and WTO. I too reject this type of globalization, but what has been created through statist methods has nothing to do with what Peet initially described as basic libertarianism. We can smell a smear job. First, set neoliberalism up as a revival of classical liberalism, then assign to the new liberalism all the problems created when power mongers in government and industry join together to increase both wealth and power for the elite actors.

This explains the current attack on the Koch brothers and the denigration of millionaires&billionaires and Wall Street, as if corporations and wealthy individuals have used classical liberal ideas to dominate the US government, the domestic economy and even the global economy. The new classical liberal corporate warriors slayed Keynesianism and conquered the world. After three or four stimulus efforts and calls from government to "invest" in education, infrastructure and green energy, I don't think Keynesianism has been slayed, or even scratched. Peet does say that Keynesianism will fail when tried again -- he has other plans.

The ideas of Reagan and Thatcher and Laffer were a blip on our statist journey, and with Reagan, government was more powerful after his eight years than before he was elected. How anyone who has paid attention to the increase in government power can blame classical liberal principles for the current situation is a mystery. The fact that regulations were captured and power players had free financial reign has nothing to do with classical liberal principles or libertarianism. A government which is limited and does not have power to sell cannot be bought. As I said in an earlier post -- our problem is not wealth accumulation by business people -- our problem is power accumulation, and this can only happen under a form of statism. Limited governments don't accumulate and sell power.

I will go further in the next post and describe the current condition of statism and how writers like Peet obscure the real problems to justify their progressive/socialistic solutions. I will show how a real free market discourages wealth accumulation by a few, and how a limited government helps prevent the human defect of power-hunger to run rampant. 

The difference between libertarianism and neo-liberalism

I'm beginning to think there's a purposeful campaign fueled by anti-capitalist sentiment that strikes out wildly to conflate "neo-liberalism" with libertarianism and free market principles in an attempt to marginalize the idea of a true free market . The narrative which frames neo-liberal economic policy as corporate control over policy makers, both domestic and international through the IMF, World Bank and WTO, has not fairly distinguished libertarianism from neo-liberalism, thus, we get the Koch brothers meme which has them pulling government strings like puppet masters. 

Even when it's explained that libertarians propose a true free market, and that neo-liberalism is anything but representative of a free market, the response is that a truly free market is impossible. But, this is a dodge. The problem with neo-liberalism is the relationship between government and corporations. Especially American neo-liberalism has set up a special relationship with IMF, the World Bank and WTO to support an elite of powerful multi-national corporations. Libertarians would abolish all special relationships which entail government coercion and financial manipulation which in effect creates coercion against third world countries. 

The attacks against neo-liberalism, however, speak loosely about "free market" philosophy, therefore their criticisms give the impression that libertarians are pushing for special corporate deals to empower the business elite over the State. A true libertarian, though, will condemn the rent-seeking corporation as vehemently as an over-reaching government and all-powerful State machine.

This has become a complicated issue, and even when intellectuals describe the difference between neo-liberalism and true free market principles, libertarians have been relegated to the fringe bin. The power elite among the IMF, World Bank, WTO and advanced States vying for a seat at the table of global governance are living in a combination of raw power-hunger and academic wonder-land as real economies suffer real consequences from the violation or real economic laws under the domination of these economic tyrants.

I will be using Richard Peet's book, Unholy Trinity, to answer some of the unfair criticisms that have placed neo-liberalism and libertarianism in the same boat. The basics of classical liberalism are fundamentally different from neo-liberalism, so much so that the word "liberal" has been terribly misused for decades. But it will be after the weekend -- I'm gone for a few days,

Koch brother bashers

http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/08/did-the-sun-come-up-this-morni

Matt Welch at Reason Online writes a hard-hitting rebuttal to Jonathan Chait's misguided attack on the Koch brothers. This can apply this to all those attacking the Koch brothers and classical liberal liberatarianism who don't know Koch from a Snicker's Bar, yet they use staid talking points to repeat false accusations, then fail to honestly admit their errors when confronted. You see, it's not about honest opinions, facts or objective criticism -- it's about destroying the Koch brothers, all those like them and Libertarianism using whatever means possible.

Oddly, attacks on libertarianism are coming from the Left and Right, which means we must be doing something good.

Misrepresentations from the Left (cont)

Another aspect of the current criticisms of Libertarianism from the Left and talk of a "Left-Libertarianism" is an attempt to marginalize the classical liberal, economic part of Libertarian thought. A faction of conservatives has grasped the classical liberal part of Libertarianism, and the Left must marginalize these economic ideas in order to reduce the economic influence on independents going into the 2012 -- plus, the economic part of Libertarianism is basically anti-statist, and this is a threat to those depending on the State to maintain power. When political parties battle for power, independents decide who gets the power.

If the Left can co-opt libertarian ideas related to civil liberties while marginalizing the economic ideas by tapping in populist anger, then they think independents will vote for the Democrat Party. To do this, the Left has to create Bad Libertarians and Good Libertarians. The Bad Libertarians are patsies for the Koch Brothers with a secret plan to disempower the middle class and enrich the very top earners, specifically through dismantling unions. The Good Libertarians are protectors of civil liberties, resisting the social/religious conservatives and Cheney-type war-mongers on the Right, protecting privacy, a woman's right to choose with un-wanted pregnancy, gay rights, free speech, and other civil rights threatened by a moralistic Right. The Good Libertarian also realizes the need for safety nets and a union's right to collectively bargain. After all, they say, Hayek understood the need for safety nets. The Good Libertarian is not anti-statist, per se, but rather pro-smart government that doesn't over-reach too much, but is strong enough to protect the middle class and the poor. The Good Libertarian rejects corporate power which they say is as bad or worse than State power.

The Bad Libertarian depicted by the cartoonists on the Left is a fictional creation for the purpose of obfuscation and marginalization of classical liberal ideas regarding limited government and a free market. The Left is frightened that the private sector will break its dependence on government and will succeed in dealing with social problems -- if this happens, the Democrat Party is over, and Big Government Republicans will be out in the cold as well -- the State will end as we've known it, and everyone on the Left dependent on the State for protection within the warm embrace of collectivism will have to prove their worth as individuals.