Do Libertarians "Praise Brutality"?Submitted by Shamus_McMises on Sat, 09/28/2013 - 21:05
Take a look at this article from salon.com.
This horrible excuse for journalism goes so far as to claim that libertarians praise brutality and are little more than lackeys for the elitist cronies that drain the treasury for their own economic gain. This goes beyond the pitiful smut that is continually put out into the mainstream these days. How dense must one be to claim that a philosphy based on the principles of non-aggression secretly praises brutality? The author, R.J. Eskow, tries to write a section on "pay to play" principles, all that he actually cites is the Koch brothers involvement in funding things like Reason Magazine and The Cato Institute. The author makes no mention of the fact that the pay to play culture in American economics actually stems from his precious government intervention. He forgets to mention that Obama appointed a former Monsanto lobbyist as his Food Safety Czar, or that the Green Jobs Czar is none other than Jeffery Immelt; billionare CEO of general electric. While people like R.J. Eskow are going around complaining about the evil Koch brothers trying to avoid having their earnings confiscated by a government bent on financing despots, torcher and war, guys like Jeff Immelt and George Soros are lobbying to have laws written that eliminate any fear they might have about competition that would arise in the market were it not for the overwhelming protectionism they get to enjoy.
Needless to say, this author is a moron. He suggests that government should just have the power to allocate money to wherever it believes it should go, but he does not realize that it is this exact mindset which perpetuates war, undermines civil liberties and creates the pay to play system which he pretends to be arguing against. R.J. writes out eleven ill-researched questions, one question asks: "Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?" I do not know if I could imagine more hopeless logic than this. The logic used in his explanation of why the market needs regulation might possibly be equally as hopeless. Eskow actually cites "illegal foreclosure" as an example of the need for more regulation. Can anyone think of a more perfect scenario to showcase why laws and regulation do not work at all? Any libertarian that has any knowledge of Austrian economics understands that protectionism is the only reason that banks could get away with the atrocities that have been going on since the collapse of the housing market. I really just wish sometimes that everyone would pick up a copy of Mises' "Human Action" and read the first couple chapters.