Some of the reaction to yesterday’s post, “Intellectual Hipsters: Libertarians” made the argument that yes, libertarianism has many defects in its theoretical intellectual foundation, but that perhaps real world libertarians are not deriving their policies strictly from that foundation, or that the policies of the Libertarian Party in America remain useful for other, non-libertarian reasons. I agree that this is a proposition worth considering, and so this post exists as a companion piece to yesterday’s–examining libertarian policy in practise to go along with yesterdays’ examination of libertarian political theory.
Tag: Debt
Occupy Wall Street and the Rolling Jubilee
I have been a long-time sceptic of the Occupy Wall Street movement–its reluctance to coalesce around any specific issues or solutions to said issues, its lack of structure, hierarchy, and organisation, and its fondness for Rousseauian direct democracy all have been and remain major turn-offs for me. There’s reason we remember Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mandela; good protest movements require good leadership, specific goals, and specific means. However, I have discovered one strand of OWS that is not completely useless. In fact, it may provide an answer to one of the most serious problems afflicting our economy–high levels of household debt and governments unwilling to do anything about it.
Continue reading “Occupy Wall Street and the Rolling Jubilee”
Fiscal Cliff Insanity
Back in August, I wrote a piece called “Fiscal Cliff Madness” about the set of consequences produced by the law enacted by the government that will severely reduce spending and raise taxes. Today, new research has surfaced from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that gives us a clearer idea of just what exactly the fiscal cliff might do to the United States’ economy if it comes to pass. The new information is even more dire than the information we had in August, and so the “madness” has now been upgraded to “insanity”.
The War on PBS
During the recent presidential debate, Mitt Romney said the following:
I’m sorry, Jim, I’m gonna stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS, I love Big Bird — I actually like you too — but I am not going to keep spending money on things [we have] to borrow money from China to pay for.
Since the debate, the left has made Romney out to be someone who hates Sesame Street and PBS, and the right has made Romney out to be someone who takes spending cuts seriously. Both completely miss the point. This statement from Romney actually tells you quite a lot about the candidate. This is a statement with far-ranging implications that matter a great deal more than even PBS’ defenders realise.
Fed-Bashing Tomfoolery
It has become fashionable on the political right to attack the Federal Reserve and its policy of quantitative easing, the process by which the Federal Reserve increases the money supply by purchasing assets owned by the private sector with cash that it prints. The right argues that quantitative easing encourages inflation and makes it easier for the government to borrow money, that it discourages saving, and that these are bad things. In contrast, these are very good things, and I shall endeavour to argue as to why.
Benjamin Studebaker 