Tuesday, March 24, Eric Staib, a libertarian on campus, challenged some claims I made in an article on libertarians published Monday. I will respond point by point.

1- Concerning the meaning of Libertarian: Staib’s first claim was entirely correct; there are many myths about libertarians, and their ideology is largely misunderstood. Libertarian is a term that today has no practical meaning; it is like liberal, terrorist, or educated, it has been overused to the point of impotence. However, for today’s purposes I believe we should define libertarian as ‘one who seeks to utilize free trade to advocate liberty.’

2- Support with History/Facts: Staib’s next argument was that I didn’t back up my claims with facts, even though I referenced “Chile under Pinochet, Apartheid South Africa, Indonesia under Suharto, Iran under the Shah, [and] modern Colombia” as examples of negative results from free market principles.

2b- Counter Argument: Staib used the examples of Singapore (in which it is a crime to chew gum, and crimes related to marijuana receive capital punishment), Hong Kong (now part of the People’s Republic of China), and South Korea. These are governments with strict controls of the population that use protectionist measures to defend their economies.

The claim that South Korea’s economic growth supports economic libertarianism does not make sense because the government subsidies to the steel and electronic (among others) industries, which are bases for the majority of South Korea’s economy, led me to discount the use of South Korea as an example of libertarian success. The South Korean government has recently begun removing these subsidies, and has already seen some declines in these industries.

However, the minimal government intervention in Chile, South Africa, Indonesia, Iran, and Colombia (in their respective times) as mentioned earlier (in the original article), fit with free markets. Personal freedoms were minimal or nonexistent for the majority in these states, further proving my point.

These examples were my basis for the claim that libertarian policies lead to corrupt governments and dictatorships. Just because the end result isn’t what economists and Staib imagined, doesn’t mean it should be discounted. They followed the economic doctrine, however the people didn’t approve and a police state was created to maintain the libertarian economic doctrines.

2C- Staib’s Support of My Position: Staib wrote, “The abuse of government power necessarily requires the existence of powerful government – which, of course, is antithetical to everything for which we libertarians fight.” I am glad Staib understood my argument. Free market legislation is so unpopular that countries have to become police states to defend these economic measures, in doing so they violate individual liberty for the promotion of libertarian economics.

2D- Biased Sources: Staib cited the Heritage Foundation (HF) in his paper. The HF is a conservative think tank who’s mission statement is to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” The first two goals of the Heritage foundation promote Staib’s argument. The HF does not publish anything that that would lead to a conclusion not supporting their conservative ideology. The HF’s obvious bias in favor of these market principles and extreme political bias in favor of all things conservative discount much of its findings.

2E- Misrepresentation of Recent History- Staib claimed that recent events refute the claims that libertarian ideologies hurt the market. The deregulation that occurred under every presidential administration since Reagan (Clinton to a lesser extent, but he did approve some deregulation, with the greatest deregulation during W. Bush’s presidency) has led to the current economic crisis. In this time the market was freed in ways it hasn’t been since the early 1930’s. In response to that economic crisis regulations were set to maintain control of this critical part of our economy. With this deregulation banks, mortgage companies, and investment companies took more risks, and eventually they failed in response to the risk, bringing the market down with them.

When the market fell as history and many economists warned us it would, consumers lost confidence, which was my point. It takes a great deal of regulation to convince citizens and businesses to reinvest their wealth. We don’t invest in things we believe will fail. Regulations help speed the process of reinstating confidence, which won’t be regained overnight.

The Power of Business- Staib’s claim that businesses are not the most powerful force in society because they do not hold the legitimate use of force is a misnomer. They don’t need the use of force, and when they’ve needed it in the past (union busting, forcing labor, protection) they’ve received permission or help from the state. Businesses often control the state’s use of force; examples include the United Fruit Company’s influence on the US’s policy in Central America, especially Guatemala and Dole Fruit’s influence on US policy in the Pacific Islands. The US had military operations in direct support of both these companies. There are many examples of governments using their force to support business interests.