How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[Richy_T]

Just build better alternatives to government provided services and eventually it will go away as it collapses under its own weight.

Unfortunately, not the case. I was just hearing the other day about a BBB initiative, funded by private money to give military people advice on handling their finances and avoiding being scammed. Ousted by a government program, the director poached for a much higher government salary.

[myrkul]

Just build better alternatives to government provided services and eventually it will go away as it collapses under its own weight.

Unfortunately, not the case. I was just hearing the other day about a BBB initiative, funded by private money to give military people advice on handling their finances and avoiding being scammed. Ousted by a government program, the director poached for a much higher government salary.

Definitely not a "better service," though.

[JoelKatz]

I stand behind the entire conversation about ad hominem. It accomplishes nothing to accuse one of using it. It fails to refute anything. It is often ad hominem itself. All it does is call attention to a logical fallacy that is unrelated to the statement being made.

Like this:

Joe's idea stinks to high heaven. Afterall, his father's an idiot.

Bad logic, to be sure. But it makes no difference with regard to the truth of untruth of Joe's idea. The statement about Joe's father is irrelevant. Ad hominem points that out, but nobody cares.

It's bad logic, and that's *all* it is. All you can do is point out that it's bad logic. If someone makes an argument that you admit is bad logic, why wouldn't the rational thing to do be to simply point out that it's bad logic? You're suggesting essentially that you should ignore the validity of an argument someone else made and instead change the subject. That's crazy.

Consider this:

Joe's idea stinks to high heaven. Oh, and by the way, I want a burger for lunch.

So he wants a burger for lunch. Good for him. Are you going to try and point out the untruth of Joe's idea stinking to high heaven by arguing about the speaker's hunger pains? If so, you're only engaging in deflection and nonsense. Instead, you should stick to the topic, which is whether Joe's idea stinks to high heaven or not.

Sure, in this example, that's right. But if they said "Joe's idea stinks to high heaven because I want a burger for lunch", all you can do is point out that hunger pains have nothing to do with Joe's idea. That's id.

You will accomplish nothing by discussing lunch, Joe's father, or whether the speaker mentioned lunch or Joe's father.

Sure, in your ridiculous example.

If on the other hand, you verbally insult me personally by engaging in ad hominem, then it might be worth my time to discuss it with you, but not because it has anything to do with the main point of argument, but because, by insulting me, I may wish to insult you back, argue the point of the insult, or plant a fist in your face.

Pointing out that an argument is ad hominem is attacking the validity of the argument. The crux of the ad hominem fallacy is that you address the character of the person who made it, not the argument. For example: "Because Joe makes ad hominem arguments, we can reject this argument" is ad hominem. It addresses Joe's character rather than the validity of his argument. But "Because Joe's argument is ad hominem, we can reject it" is perfectly valid. It doesn't address Joe's character but the validity of his argument.

We can, and should, refute invalid arguments. But we can't dismiss an argument based on characteristics of the person who made it. But we must evaluate an argument based on characteristics of that argument itself.

Your suggestion is basically that we presume bad faith on the part of the person advancing the argument because it's invalid and not point out that it's invalid. I'm suggesting we presume good faith on the part of person advancing the argument and do them the courtesy of pointing out that their argument is invalid and that they should honor their good faith, accept its invalidity, and abandon it. Not addressing the specific argument they actually made by pointing out that it's fallacious will make it seem to them that you're simply ignoring the arguments they actually made and just making unrelated arguments. That will make them find it hard to presume you are arguing in good faith and it's a recipe for turning what could have been a productive discussion into chaos.

[myrkul]

That will make them find it hard to presume you are arguing in good faith and it's a recipe for turning what could have been a productive discussion into chaos.

Which is what he feeds on, so that's OK.

[JoelKatz]

That will make them find it hard to presume you are arguing in good faith and it's a recipe for turning what could have been a productive discussion into chaos.

Which is what he feeds on, so that's OK.

At least you do follow your own advice and don't bother responding the substance of those who pay you the courtesy of addressing the substance of your arguments. Read posts #5, #7, #8, and #11, my exchange with Cunicula, and compare them to my exchange with you. Which strategy gives the results you want?

[fergalish]

Let's get back on topic.  The article says:

1. Big business created libertarianism
2. Friedman, its representative, was a scumbag.

Well, saying libertarianism is terrible because of point 2 would certainly seem to be an invalid argument. Point number 1, however, is very relevant. What would big business stand to gain from libertarianism?

All the pro-libs here suggest that evil big corporations will suffer under libertarianism because they'll be out-competed by smaller "nicer" outfits in the free market.  So, why would big business promote libertarianism then?

[note: I'm assuming the article is factually correct regarding the facts it states, to wit, that big business did, in fact, create and promote libertarianism. I'm neither an historian nor an economist so I can't judge the truth of these statements]

[grondilu]

There is nothing wrong with big businesses.  Why so much hate against them?

Big businesses created and promoted liberarianism, you say?  Yeah, that would not surprise me if people who succeeded in their economic life promote economic freedom.  What's your point exactly?

[JoelKatz]

Let's get back on topic.  The article says:

1. Big business created libertarianism

...

All the pro-libs here suggest that evil big corporations will suffer under libertarianism because they'll be out-competed by smaller "nicer" outfits in the free market.  So, why would big business promote libertarianism then?

Do you see what you did there? You swapped the subject from "big business" to "evil big corporations". Just as you would expect good individuals to support things that are bad for bad individuals, good big businesses generally support things that are bad for evil big businesses -- especially when they compete with them directly.

There are definitely some evil big businesses that take libertarian or quasi-libertarian positions on specific issues that they expect will benefit them.

[myrkul]

Well, saying libertarianism is terrible because of point 2 would certainly seem to be an invalid argument. Point number 1, however, is very relevant. What would big business stand to gain from libertarianism?

From libertarianism, very little. Taken to it's logical conclusion, libertarianism spells the end for big business's grasp on power. Many of these companies are way too big to compete with smaller, more efficient companies.

From a more libertarian government, on the other hand... Big business has quite a lot to gain. A more "business friendly" climate - while still retaining the regulations that serve as the gatekeepers to keep those little companies out of the game, would put big business on very good footing, indeed.

[crispy]

Well, if the idea of "ad-hominem" is be played out, let's try a new term, "Occam's razor".

Assuming that the claims of support by some businesses for libertarianism are correct, does it follow that "Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists" in the United States in the 1950's?

It appears that the historical use of the term dates back to the 19th century, so that's quite unlikely.

It's much more plausible that organizations, such as the real-estate lobby found a common objective with the libertarians: reduction in government regulation, particularly rent controls. From the point of view of landlords, big-government Democrats (e.g. FDR) would be an enemy and big-government Republicans (e.g. Hoover) would also be an enemy.  An organization which proposed that government interference was often counterproductive would be seen as an ally.  From the PoV of libertarian evangelists, being paid to promote their own viewpoint would be win-win.

Also, as has been pointed out above, there are limits to the alliance between libertarians and big business.  First, many big businesses (e.g. General Electric, Lockheed, Boeing), while wishing for reduced government regulation in their businesses, are very happy to have a customer who can print up a virtually infinite supply of money to pay his bills. Second, properly formulated regulations can help erect barriers to entry for competitors.  The revolving door between business and government helps to ensure that regulations are "properly formulated" for best effect.  As an example, look at the requirements for setting up a bank or stock exchange.

[DanielBTC]

Austrian School (classical liberalism)

Carl Menger (February 23, 1840 – February 26, 1921)
Eugen Böhm-Bawerk (German: [bøːm ˈbaːvɛʁk]; born Eugen Böhm; February 12, 1851 – August 27, 1914)
Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (German: [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]; 29 September 1881 – 10 October 1973)
Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995)

I think the roots of libertarianism are older than 1950.

The austrian school, makes sense to me. You can access mises.org and read some articles. ;-)


Remembering that the world was 'free market' for centuries.

[MoonShadow]

I think the roots of libertarianism are older than 1950.

Much older.

[myrkul]

I think the roots of libertarianism are older than 1950.

Much older.

To name a few:
Gustave de Molinari
Frederic Bastiat

[MoonShadow]

I think the roots of libertarianism are older than 1950.

Much older.

To name a few:
Gustave de Molinari
Frederic Bastiat

Some more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin

And of course....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

[cunicula]

What would big business stand to gain from libertarianism?

Upside: Reduction in tax burdens, freedom from regulation.
Downside: Loss of state bailouts, state protection from competition, reduced gov't demand

Note however that business does not need to advocate a coherent ideological package. (why should they? good for them, only zealots do this).
One year they can just advocate for low taxes and no regulation. When they do so they throw in with the libertarian crowd.
The next day they advocate for regulations that protect them from competition. Then they throw in with the
Ross Perot crowd. The next day they advocate for increased gov't spending. Then they throw in with the Keynesian crowd. They play everyone off of each other.

It could be that the libertarian crowd needed a boost to compete with other groups, so big business strengthened their hand. Doesn't mean that they are friends of libertarians though. They just shared mutual interests at a certain point in time.

This is like arming the frontier barbarians to create a buffer between your own state and a neighboring empire. Doesn't mean you think well of the barbarians. Not at all.

[cunicula]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

Our friend. A steadfast enemy of big business and libertarianism.

     
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

[MoonShadow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

Our friend. A steadfast enemy of big business and libertarianism.

     
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

Dude, that's was a quote deriding trade guilds, the precursers to unions.  Still, big businesses really didn't exist in Adam Smith era, except for those with official state monopolies such as the East India Company.  He wasn't a fan, but I've yet to meet a libertarian who believes that big business is somehow worthy of special government favors.  I've yet to meet a lib that limited liability for corporations is a good idea, either.

[myrkul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

Our friend. A steadfast enemy of big business and libertarianism.

     
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

Dude, that's was a quote deriding trade guilds, the precursors to unions. 

Trade unions are still evil... It's one thing to require membership to work in a particular shop. Another thing entirely to require membership to work in a particular profession.

[cunicula]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

Our friend. A steadfast enemy of big business and libertarianism.

      
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

Dude, that's was a quote deriding trade guilds, the precursers to unions.  Still, big businesses really didn't exist in Adam Smith era, except for those with official state monopolies such as the East India Company.  He wasn't a fan, but I've yet to meet a libertarian who believes that big business is somehow worthy of special government favors.  I've yet to meet a lib that limited liability for corporations is a good idea, either.

No. It is not principally about the evils of employees (who form unions). It is about the evils of masters (who hire employees) and form cartels.

Here is another one which will clarify Adam Smith's attitude towards regulation.

"Whenever the legislative attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in the favor of the workmen, it is
always just and equitable; but it sometime is otherwise when in favor of the masters."

We can see then that regulations on workplace safety, for example, would always be "just and equitable."

I suggest you read the book. Adam Smith is about as statist as you can get. He is terrified by private conspiracies against the public interest. He supports legislation that protects the poor from abuse by wealthier individuals in society. I am not cherrypicking. He is obsessed with these issues.

[fergalish]

...Big business ... evil big corporations ...

Do you see what you did there? You swapped the subject from "big business" to "evil big corporations".

Touchè! I guess it's just so ingrained in my mind that I didn't realise I made the swap. True, there may well be good Big Business. When I look at politics, and how it is influenced by lobbying, I genuinely feel that an abolition of big business would do much more good than harm for most people on the planet. Perhaps I'm biased.

<snip>
Some more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
<snip>

Ok. So let's look at the idea of why BigBusiness would *promote* libertarianism. Just like the Christians took what they liked from a plethora of cults before them, and promoted it as their own, maybe BigBusiness did the same with libertarianism. What would the "true" founders of libertarianism have to say about huge multinational corporations, some with budgets the size of countries?

What would big business stand to gain from libertarianism?

Upside: Reduction in tax burdens, freedom from regulation.
Downside: Loss of state bailouts, state protection from competition, reduced gov't demand
<snip>

This seems logical. I'd add another upside: elimination of large-scale state-monopolized violence. No entity could challenge the BigCorp's security division. Depending on whether it was a GoodBigCorp or BadBigCorp, this would be a correspondingly good or bad thing. Right?

So when BigCorps now push liberal agendas, do libertarians tend to think this is a good thing? Or do they watch with scepticism and wonder... "Why, what's in it for them?"