As a libertarian and a proud foreign policy heretic, I believe in the concept of blowback. Coinciding with the rise of Ron Paul is more widespread acceptance of the idea -- that covertly bombing and killing innocent civilians will provoke outrage at the aggressor country, possibly resulting in casualties. There is still much work to be done, however, as a majority of Americans still think that al-Qaeda wants our heads because we eat pork and listen to pop.
But just as I turn on Fox News and cringe as their "analysts" discuss al-Qaeda's morally driven assault on this country, I also cringe when I talk to a good number of libertarians about austerity.
Whether it be in Athens, London, Lisbon, Madison (WI), Madrid, Paris or Rome, many libertarians are often paralyzed in state of dismay and utter confusion when they see RT broadcast the seige of Syntagma square. Words may not even be spoken as the only reaction is one of: !!!11!1111!1!1!1!!!!!
After coming to their senses, the 'parasitic' union worker, the 'only-looking-for-a-handout' college graduate, and the 'treasonous' bankers are all dismissed as scum of the earth in one fell swoop. Talk about carelessness.
No, I'm not pro-status quo. Yes, I think that the whole world needs a nice big dose of austerity. And yes, protests or not, the austerity should still happen.
But what I'm calling the many libertarians I described earlier to do is to please wake up and use some common sense. Apply the same logic you do to blowback to the problem of austerity.
When a welfare state with a huge public sector, young retirement and generous benefits has to make drastic changes, of course people are going to be angry. That was their way of life. That was what they knew, and now it's all coming to an end.
No matter whether or not you think their anger is appropriate or not, just don't try to use the libertarian worldview -- "everyone should embrace the austerity" -- to paint a rosy picture of the world.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments











This is a great post. Not only do we need to keep in mind that the cuts we propose (and need) aren't going to be completely painless, but that we need to prioritize those cuts: i.e. it's incredible important to make clear that we want to take the knife to the corporate subsidies and bailouts, war budgets, and wasteful or duplicate programs long before we go after programs to help those in need. Austerity isn't about ripping the rug out from underneath people on day one; there's a lot we can cut in the meantime while we give people plenty of time to adapt.
The problem with the greek version of austerity is it is designed to take money from the poor and give it to very rich bond investors. Minimum wage in greece was in our terms $4.60 per hour, which they want cut to $3.60.
I should point out I am an Australian and as I sit here we have the strongest economy (and the lowest debt ratio) in the western world. Our minimum wage is $15 per hour. Cutting from the bottom doesn't stimulate economies, it only makes the rich richer.
Without the debt repayments it would not be difficult for the greeks to balance their budget. Economic leverage and debt is the new tyranny, and in time the world will learn it is more dangerous than any standing army.
Is the Austrialian economy as great as you say for the sole fact that it has a high minimum wage? I doubt it. Forced wages by itself cannot account for a great economy.
Cutting from the bottom or the top is the same difference - government coercion funded by poor and rich people who pay taxes. by rasing the minimum wage, you simply reduce the labor pool and create unemployment. If companies, mom/pop or corporation, were so greedy, if forced to pay more for workers, they will simply pay for less hired positions.
Whether you agree with that or not, wage control can't be the ultimate reason why Austrailia has a strong economy.