Well, the point of the essay was that your destination, in terms of policy, would most likely lead to the situation he's describing. Take away OSHA, welfare/SS/medicare, the 40-hour work week and the rest of those burdensome regulations and redistributive entitlements and you're pretty much where he described.
If you're not that extremist, great. But most libertarians, whether extreme or not, have an annoying tendency to approach every problem like they've studied it for decades and the answer is "less government". That's it! No need to know anything about the subject or even attempt to justify such a self-evident claim. In those cases it's hard to resist the Somalia retort.
While I do appreciate you posting another example of the very mistake I was describing, I still have to admit I'm a little astonished. After all that you still think you actually know me well enough to know what my destination is? Just from the fact that I at one point used the word libertarian?
At what point did I say to take away OSHA, welfare/SS/medicare, the 40-hour workweek (to the extent that it even exists), and etc. etc.? I'm somewhat less concerned about "burdensome regulations" and a lot more worried about crashing the economy right now. How much welfare will exist when the government is bankrupt?
(Er, well, actually that's a bad question. The government is bankrupt. So, how much welfare will exist when everybody realizes the US Federal government is bankrupt?)
The problem you face now when countering people like me and the reason this attitude is on the rise is that the entire premise that everything is fine and we shouldn't cut a dime from government spending and in fact we should spend as much more as possible (is it OK if I just guess at your ideas too?) is that it has become plainly obvious that that is completely fiscally unsustainable, and no amount of moralizing, philosophizing, theorizing, or any other sort of -izing actually adds to the wealth-generation side of the equation. A crashed government does nobody any good. Step one, keep the patient alive; worry about what he's doing and how well he's doing it after you've got that settled.
Hi, please reread? I specifically said not you personally.
And if we're talking about budget balance and actual policy details? Great. That's what most libertarians never ever do, they just prattle on about how less government would be better in theory. Oh, and cut taxes.
So, again, not you specifically, but including you, I've almost never heard a practical policy suggestion from a libertarian. Something like "import drugs from canada, it saves money", or "repeal farm subsidies". All I hear is either the vague "less government" or occasionally the extremist Somalia routine that you very much are not proscribing.
To be blunt, you don't know the first thing about libertarians and I think you should stop using the word as a synonym for "Republican". Just looking through the first page of the Cato Institute's blog, here's a post criticizing the future Republican Speaker of the House for pandering to the Medicare crowd:
90% of articles at Cato, Reason, and other libertarian publications between 2001 - 2009 were critical of Republicans when they were in power and running up a big debt, starting wars, and generally making a mess of the place.
If you listen to ACTUAL LIBERTARIANS, you will find plenty of unapologetic concrete plans for reducing government spending. These plans are ignored by 100% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans, but we hope in time to have a larger influence over society. People like you using the word "libertarian" even when you don't know what it means is a good sign that we are increasing our visibility at least.
Ooh, CATO wrote a blog post with some token criticism?
They're still gonna line up behind the banner when it matters.
90% of everything Cato did during the Bush years was just the opposite, supporting the republican party and/or undermining the democratic party. Then they throw in a little 10% of criticism to make it look like they're principled, and people like you just fall right in line.
If you vote for republicans, you're a republican. Period. Here you are saying your plans are ignored by 100% of democrats, excuse me? Obama cut your taxes, and Republicans are the ones who time and time again ramp up government spending and deficits, then leave it to the democrats (Clinton, Obama) to clean up the mess.
And, yeah, you're increasing your visibility, but it's all tea party crazies. To these people, "i don't like government" is a synonym for "i don't like obama". There is no deeper principle there than that. Good luck with those guys.
Unfortunately, in American politics, you have to pick a side. I'm sympathetic to some bits of libertarian philosophy but I'll oppose anything that enables the Republican party with my wallet, my vote, my phone, and my shoe leather.
The idea that we will end up in a Dickensian (or Somalian) nightmare if we were to reduce the size of the government by any substantial degree (80%? 50%? 20%?) is patently absurd and, hopefully, self-refuting.
To hear people talk you'd think that any amount of reduction would lead to Somalia.
However, history tells us that even when the federal government is 1/8th the size it is today (as a percent of GDP) the US does not turn into Somalia, not even a little bit.
If you're not that extremist, great. But most libertarians, whether extreme or not, have an annoying tendency to approach every problem like they've studied it for decades and the answer is "less government". That's it! No need to know anything about the subject or even attempt to justify such a self-evident claim. In those cases it's hard to resist the Somalia retort.