![]() |
| Yellow for Paul; Green for Grayson |
I learned that the Pauls adhere to the Austrian School of economics, which originated in Vienna during the Austrian Empire and was influential in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The core values were decentralization, and laissez faire market operations. Contractual agreements and commercial transactions were held to be voluntary and only the most fractional government role was tolerated in the marketplace.
Libertarians try to extrapolate these economic policies to apply to all forms of social contract; they imagine a Libertarian Society...and it's right about here that the schisms begin. The forms of Libertarianism include (this week): Anarcho-Capitalism, Geolibertarianism, Left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Conservatism, Libertarian Socialism (really?), Libertarian Transhumanism, Minarchism, and Mutualism. Isms scare me. And I'd hate to think how many types of Libertarian Presbyterians there might be or what those transhumans look like.
I wonder if the history of the Austrian Empire has anything to teach us about Anarcho-Capitalism, or Minarchism, or...I guess Paulism, really. The empire that was formed in 1867 collapsed about fifty years later, which makes it one of the briefest classical empires in history. It essentially collapsed under the weight of trying to accommodate the ethnic individualities of Croats, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Rusyns, Slovaks, Slovenes, Ukrainians, Italians, and Romanians--and started the first World War in the process.
After the war, in 1922, the League of Nations had to bail out the economy, which was bankrupted due to inflation, making Austria a ward of the League. Subsequently, Austria was subsumed by The Third Reich. It's autonomy was eventually returned to it by the peaceful post-war withdrawal of NATO occupation. Austria is a very rich nation today, but its wealth is largely due to its neutrality--no need for a standing army--rather than to any magical economic formula. According to wikipedia.com,
Austria is the 12th richest country in the world in terms of GDP (Gross domestic product) per capita, has a well-developed social market economy, and a high standard of living . Until the 1980s, many of Austria's largest industry firms were nationalised; in recent years, however, privatisation has reduced state holdings to a level comparable to other European economies. Labour movements are particularly strong in Austria and have large influence on labour politics.
So much for the Austrian School of unregulated free market economic theory.
Meanwhile, back here at home, in just one day in the news last week, the need for greater regulation was invoked in response to three separate critical issues. As an exercise in applied Libertarianism, as each of three issues came up in the news, I tried to imagine how Ron Paul and his Tea Party would handle them. Keeping in mind that, in a debate setting, if asked how he would handle a given situation if elected, the standard Libertarian's dodge is to cite how the problem never would have developed in a society where government was small and interference in markets was nearly nonexistent.
Never mind that dodge. Elections are real time, in the midst of the crises we're currently facing. If Rand Paul wins a Senate seat, the Republican Party will think it has seen the direction of its destiny. And, in that event, Ron Paul will run in 2012 and he will win many more than the 14 delegates he garnered in 2008. That's a bid to inherit the kind of problems we've faced in the last week of May, 2010.
Try these exercises yourself, if you're so inclined. I let the logic of the Libertarians apply as far as my imagination would take me. You won't need my answers to get the picture.
************
The Gulf Oil Spill: Given that the Ron Paul has asserted that Louisiana should not have received federal aid after Hurricane Katrina ( this, from a Representative whose 14th District stretches along the Gulf Coast from Galveston to Corpus Christi--are we supposed to believe that his call on Katrina aid is more pure somehow, since it could as easily have been Galveston hit hardest by Katrina?), his position on the Gulf and BP is predictable. Son, Rand, had the following to say on May 21st about BP and the spill:
On the oil spill, Paul, a libertarian and tea party favorite, said he had heard nothing from BP indicating it wouldn't pay for the spill that threatens devastating environmental damage along the Gulf of Mexico coast.
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen," Paul said.
The senate candidate referred to a Kentucky coal mine accident that killed two men, saying he had met with the families and he admired the coal miners' courage. "We had a mining accident that was very tragic. ... Then we come in and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen," he said.
![]() |
| Gulf Oil Rigs, From Nov, 2009: HeatingOil.com "The surge of production from the Gulf of Mexico has led the US to produce more crude oil than it has since 2004." |
The Exercise: How would non-interference and non-regulation in the business of offshore drilling play out ? Would we, the buying public, make our displeasure with British Petroleum known by cutting up our BP cards? Libertarians advocate local management of local problems; how would local be defined in this case?
**********
Johnson and Johnson's Recall: The FDA had to pressure J&J for a massive recall of over forty kinds of children's medications, from Children's Tylenol to Pediacare this month citing bacteria buildup in the laboratories where the medications were produced. Regulation is being discussed and criminal action is under consideration. The FDA has been calling for accountability on J&J's OTC products since last September, but the drug manufacturer has been dragging its heels. In a Congressional Investigation, (May 26, 2010, AP, Chicago Tribune) :
Colleen Goggins, J&J’s president for McNeil consumer products, told lawmakers the company has already taken steps to fix the problems, including shaking up its management structure. But she had few answers to questions about an alleged “phantom recall” of more than 88,000 packets of Motrin, a pain reliever containing ibuprofen. According to FDA documents, J&J learned about a formulation problem in November 2008 that interfered with the pills’ dissolving action, causing them to lose potency. J&J then hired an outside contractor to collect samples of the product — mainly sold in gas stations — and determine whether a recall was necessary. But instead of sampling the product, the contractor began purchasing large quantities of Motrin and instructing its employees not to mention a recall.
A memo titled “Motrin Purchase Project,” distributed during the hearing states: “You should simply ’act’ like a regular customer while making these purchases. There must be no mention of this being a recall of the product!”
The Exercise: How does this OTC pediatric medicine problem play out at the hands of a Libertarian administration that calls government interference of business "Un-American"?
**********
Facebook's Privacy Policy Problem: The name is oxymoronic. Facebook isn't actually interested in your privacy; they are interested short-term in advertising income, which relies on your loosening attachment to privacy as a right and as a moral value. They are also interested, longer-term, in turning their social network into a social utility as vital to your sense of well-being as telephones were, in their day, and as cell phones are, today. Given how far Facebook has come in user population since its inception in 2004 (over 400 million active users by 2010), they are well on their way to meeting their goal. In pursuing their own goals, Facebook periodically resets their privacy controls--on your account--to virtual zero, allowing advertisers to gather information with which to market you more effectively. The only thing that prevents a default setting of No Privacy is the hue and cry of users who notice and complain. After a couple of legal problems, Facebook began informing users of changes to privacy controls...as far as we know. However, until recently, their privacy platforms were so complex that users couldn't exercise full privacy controls with confidence.
The Exercise: Without regulation, what ultimate outcome would you predict for the future of sites like Facebook, for their users, and for private information?
**********
So, take your pick. I firmly believe that the apparent increase in the usual rate at which urgent issues arise is unprecedented. The tipping point has been surpassed for manageable population, viable climate, and available resources. We have entered a maelstrom. These are the most dangerous of times and such times give birth to the most dangerous of heroes. A simple idea, desperate times, an angry power base, and a small man: it all sounds ominously familiar to me.
Follow Up: Saul Friedman has an excellent post dated Wednesday, June 16, on the Pauls, their policies, the political context of current libertarianism, and on the Paulist vote: "REFLECTIONS: On The Paranoid Style"
Follow Up: Saul Friedman has an excellent post dated Wednesday, June 16, on the Pauls, their policies, the political context of current libertarianism, and on the Paulist vote: "REFLECTIONS: On The Paranoid Style"






Fantastic article!
ReplyDeleteMy observation:
Scientists claim that a headless cockroach can only be expected to survive for 10 days.
Kentucky may have found the exception to the rule in Rand Paul!
This short satire is my video response to the good doctor:
Rand Paul Video
Usually the misinformed and misguided follow someone to their downfall without harming an entire country or its people. This would not be the case with the popularity growth of Ron/Rand Paul's Paulism. If we don't agree with his views we often tend to ignore him and assume/hope he will go away. Can't do that this time. This view is too easily accepted by folks who are tired of too much government (as I am) but who don't take the time to think about the consequences of following something like the Paulism(s). Geeezzzzz. All we have to do is look at the current state of affairs to note that it's not only Wall St. but also most profit oriented corporations/businesses that have built up an attitude of whatever we have to do to "please the shareholder (er, Wall St)" - which means short term profit consistently qtr by qtr - we must do and to hell with the consequences. Oh, and are we paying our lobbyist enough to keep us out of trouble? When I first got up to visit my son, granddaughter and grandson who is 3, my grandson would say "Oh dammit" every time something went wrong. My son doesn't know where he picked it up but he isn't saying it any more. At least around me :) But I mention it because it's a fitting closing to my too long comment. OH DAMMIT!
ReplyDeleteI find that we are paying attention to the loudest and angriest. Our ability to have patience and reason out problems is disappearing. So many people are about the quick fix, no skin in the game for them, and not in my backyard. I fear it will bet worse before we slowly claw our way back to some sense of normality.
ReplyDeleteI can tell you this, with 24 percent of his constituents uninsured, Ron Paul
ReplyDelete(Rep., TX 14) voted AGAINST health care reform. Clearly, he believes we should all clean up our own houses. My question is, why would anyone vote for a representative who flat-out tells you he will never vote in your best interest? Makes no sense to me.
Once again, I learn from you. Thanks for the brief political history lesson, and for the invitation to think. My brain goes here -- why would either Paul want to be a part of a government at all? If it's unnecessary, why bother to participate? With a doctor in the family, they've never been without free health care (doctors routinely comp their services to their peers) so why would they look further than the end of their own noses for solutions to problems they don't believe ought to exist?
ReplyDeleteThe notion that "we are all in this together" is what bound the colonies in their battle against Britain. While deTocqueville considered Americans the most social of people, the most willing to join associations, it seems that we've now learned to live in individual silos, rarely looking outside and wondering what kind of grain might be next door.
I try not to despair.....
a/b
Nance, this is a brilliantly constructed piece of writing. I think that it should be required reading for all people of voting age. Hell, I also think that it should be required reading in civics classes. This is truly one of the best evaluations of libertarianism and its real world application that I've read.
ReplyDeleteVery well-thought out and informative aticle.
ReplyDeleteCandidate Paul's stance on just about everything seems counter-productive to our way of life... um, unless you are a big business who wants government to stay the hell out.
Libertarians and Republicans just confuse me. They are excellent at making people think they are for the little guy, but gut them like a dead fish (and sadly, there's a lot of that going around down in the Gulf) every time they turn around.
Thanks for this piece.
The issue I have, Nance, is that while you mention different variety of libertarians, your examples only apply to Libertarian Conservatives. There are those like me who are Libertarian and Leftist, who believe that a free market only works when all parties behave like adults. When a major corporation starts to behave like a spoiled child caught stealing or vandalizing, then it deserves to be disciplined with regulations, until it shows that it's mature enough to be treated as an adult again. Too much regulation is a mistake, IMO - however, as all your examples prove, so is too little.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with too many people calling themselves "Libertarians" any more is that they're like overindulgent parents - and their kids are, quite literally, pissing all over the furniture and burning the sofa. They're also the first people to call for a handout (like the financial industry did in 2008!) when they've gambled all their money away - which makes them not the Objectivist ĂĽbermenschen they fantasize of being, but what the founder of Objectivism herself, Ayn Rand, called "looters and moochers".
If Dr. Paul's neighbors pooled their resources, formed a private corporation to which they sold their property, and erected an oil refinery thereon, would Dr. Paul be okay with that? It's their private property, after all.
ReplyDeleteTim, I think the Pauls fall into Second Chance Grass-Fed Fosterite Minarchichal Guthixianism. At least as of last week. Rand may have seen the Light since last week, so be prepared for Schismism.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant! I was aghast that Rand Paul was elected, especially after hearing his comments on the oil spill and more importantly the Civil Rights act. Your article highlights how hard it can be to even waach the news and absorb everything that's going on. But it IS what we must do in order to keep toads like him from preaching ignorance. Fabulous job, Nance.
ReplyDeleteWhoa. I confess that I did not read this, my brain's bandwidth cannot process all this cerebral info :)
ReplyDeleteyou read about all my crazy antics and life lately. Fitness show is on Sat. (btw i got signed w/ a fitness modeling agency super excited about that) but show is on Sat. and then truck is loaded Tues and we drive and are in SD by Tues nite. Hillcrest baby. 5 blocks from the Trader Joes plaza. I am sooooo excited!
So glad you all are enjoying the Left coast too :)
xo
Nance--
ReplyDeleteThank you for this. Your rhetorical exercises give the lie beautifully to the whole obsessive commitment to ideology--obsessive in that it cannot tolerate modifications or acknowledge exceptions that would lead to the mixed economy we have. This is what happens to people who prefer abstractions to the facts of life. It was true of Marx,Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and many others.
But here's the real trick: how can a message like yours be "framed" so it makes sense to the electorate? If it could be, the Pauls et al would find life becoming more difficult.