Reply #19: Libertarians have tunnel vision

[William Seger]

They're obsessed with the idea that "freedom" only means freedom from government coercion, but they're completely unconcerned about the coercive, enslaving power of private individuals and institutions. "Free market" to them only means freedom from government control; the grinding, unbreakable control that private entities gain and maintain in a libertarian "free market" doesn't concern them at all.

Of course the government can create wealth -- the same way that private capitalists can create wealth. But libertarians are preoccupied with the notion that a lot (but not all) of government spending doesn't fit the simplified wealth-creation model of buying raw materials and hiring workers to create products that are "worth" more than the cost of production. But that simplified model neglects a couple of important ingredients: For one thing, no wealth is created unless someone actually buys the products, so being unconcerned about whether or not enough people have the money to buy the products is foolish. For another, especially in the last hundred years of so, workers need education, and if only the wealthy could afford education, then there would be fewer qualified workers, which would make labor much more expensive. Most of what the government does is in support of the infrastructure that creates the stable, financially healthy, educated society that indirectly supports wealth creation (even though that isn't necessarily its highest purpose). Libertarians imagine that in a "free market", those things will just magically happen, somehow. Problem is, there's no historical evidence to support that hypothesis.

That's what's wrong with the "supply-side" idiocy, too. The secret to a growing economy is helping the "buy-side" of the market to grow, not helping the rich to get richer so they have more money to invest. If markets are shrinking, then there's nothing worth investing in, no matter how much money the investors have. If the market for a product is there and growing, then we don't need to depend on a handful of super-rich people to invest in it; lots of people with a little bit of money to invest will do just as well.

If you want to see where libertarian economic philosophy leads, look at 19th century America: At the turn of the century, over half of the American population lived in subsistence poverty, while a tiny handful were very rich. If you want to see where progressive economic philosophy leads if given half a chance, look at 20th century America: At the turn of the century, not only were most Americans middle class (which hardly existed in the 19th century), but the wealthy class was also larger and wealthier. That's simply because more real wealth was created in that century, and that was primarily the result of creating a strong middle-class market through progressive labor reform -- unions, minimum wage, etc. -- and government infrastructure programs such as roads, education, public utilities, etc. -- not by letting libertarian "free market" forces reign supreme.