A well written piece exposing more of the hypocrisy of rand paul, ayn rand, atheist libertarians, followed by a great Paul Krugman article on the failure of modern economies. From +Salon .....
Sunday, Sep 14, 2014 01:00 PM EST
Rand Paul, Ayn Rand, Richard Dawkins (Credit: AP/Timothy D. Easley/Reuters/Chris Keane)
Sunday, Sep 14, 2014 01:00 PM EST
The atheist libertarian lie: Ayn Rand, income inequality and the fantasy of the “free market”
Atheist libertarians pose as skeptics -- except when it comes to free markets and the nature of corporate power
Rand Paul, Ayn Rand, Richard Dawkins (Credit: AP/Timothy D. Easley/Reuters/Chris Keane)
Why
atheists are disproportionately drawn to libertarianism is a question
that many liberal atheists have trouble grasping. To believe that
markets operate and exist in a state of nature is, in itself, to believe
in the supernatural. The very thing atheists have spent their lives
fleeing from.
According to the American Values Survey, a mere 7 percent of Americans identify as “consistently libertarian.” Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be white (94 percent), young (62 percent under 50) and male (68 percent). You know, almost identical to the demographic makeup of atheists – white (95 percent), young (65 percent under 50) and male (67 percent). So there’s your first clue.
Your second clue is that atheist libertarians are skeptical of government authority in the same way they’re skeptical of religion. In their mind, the state and the pope are interchangeable, which partly explains the libertarian atheist’s guttural gag reflex to what they perceive as government interference with the natural order of things, especially “free markets.”
Robert Reich says that one of the most deceptive ideas embraced by the Ayn Rand-inspired libertarian movement is that the free market is natural, and exists outside and beyond government. In other words, the “free market” is a constructed supernatural myth.
There is much to cover here, but a jumping-off point is the fact that corporations are a government construct, and that fact alone refutes any case for economic libertarianism. Corporations, which are designed to protect shareholders insofar as mitigating risk beyond the amount of their investment, are created and maintained only via government action. “Statutes, passed by the government, allow for the creation of corporations, and anyone wishing to form one must fill out the necessary government paperwork and utilize the apparatus of the state in numerous ways. Thus, the corporate entity is by definition a government-created obstruction to the free marketplace, so the entire concept should be appalling to libertarians,” says David Niose, an atheist and legal director of the American Humanist Association.
In the 18th century, Adam Smith, the granddaddy of American free-market capitalism, wrote his economic tome “The Wealth of Nations.” But his book has as much relevance to modern mega-corporation hyper-capitalism today as the Old Testament has to morality in the 21st century.
According to the American Values Survey, a mere 7 percent of Americans identify as “consistently libertarian.” Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be white (94 percent), young (62 percent under 50) and male (68 percent). You know, almost identical to the demographic makeup of atheists – white (95 percent), young (65 percent under 50) and male (67 percent). So there’s your first clue.
Your second clue is that atheist libertarians are skeptical of government authority in the same way they’re skeptical of religion. In their mind, the state and the pope are interchangeable, which partly explains the libertarian atheist’s guttural gag reflex to what they perceive as government interference with the natural order of things, especially “free markets.”
Robert Reich says that one of the most deceptive ideas embraced by the Ayn Rand-inspired libertarian movement is that the free market is natural, and exists outside and beyond government. In other words, the “free market” is a constructed supernatural myth.
There is much to cover here, but a jumping-off point is the fact that corporations are a government construct, and that fact alone refutes any case for economic libertarianism. Corporations, which are designed to protect shareholders insofar as mitigating risk beyond the amount of their investment, are created and maintained only via government action. “Statutes, passed by the government, allow for the creation of corporations, and anyone wishing to form one must fill out the necessary government paperwork and utilize the apparatus of the state in numerous ways. Thus, the corporate entity is by definition a government-created obstruction to the free marketplace, so the entire concept should be appalling to libertarians,” says David Niose, an atheist and legal director of the American Humanist Association.
In the 18th century, Adam Smith, the granddaddy of American free-market capitalism, wrote his economic tome “The Wealth of Nations.” But his book has as much relevance to modern mega-corporation hyper-capitalism today as the Old Testament has to morality in the 21st century.
CJ Werleman is the author of "Crucifying America"
and "God Hates You. Hate Him Back." You can follow him on Twitter: @cjwerleman
More CJ Werleman.
More CJ Werleman.
Monday, Sep 15, 2014 09:20 AM EST
Elias Isquith is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on politics. Follow him on Twitter at @eliasisquith, and email him at eisquith@salon.com.
More Elias Isquith.
Paul Krugman decries the “enormous intellectual failure” of modern economics
The economist and Times columnist says his field has suffered from believing in "an idealized vision of capitalism"
In his latest column for the New York Times,
award-winning economist and liberal pundit Paul Krugman returns to one
of his recurring themes and tries to understand how the field of
economics could not only fail to predict the economic catastrophe of
2008, but fail to ensure policymakers in the West responded to it with
pro-growth, countercyclical spending. “[I]t’s important to realize that
the enormous intellectual failure of recent years took place at several
levels,” Krugman writes. “In what sense did economics go astray?”
One of the first places to look, Krugman argues, is at the field’s recent deification of free-market economics and the “neoclassical models” that support its proponents. “[I]dealized models have a useful role to play in economics,” Krugman grants. “But starting in the 1980s it became harder and harder to publish anything questioning these idealized models in major journals.” The problem, Krugman says, is that “assuming away irrationality and market failure,” as neoclassical models did and do, “meant assuming away the very possibility of the kind of catastrophe that overtook the developed world six years ago.”
Despite these mistakes, Krugman says, the truth is that while most economists did not predict the crash, most have subsequently responded by promoting the correct Keynesian response. It’s just that policymakers haven’t been listening. “If you imagine that policy makers have spent the past five or six years in thrall to economic orthodoxy, you’ve been misled,” Krugman deadpans. “On the contrary, key decision makers have been highly receptive to innovative, unorthodox economic ideas — ideas that also happen to be wrong but which offered excuses to do what these decision makers wanted to do anyway.”
Indeed, instead of putting the lion’s share of the blame on the shoulders of economics in general or famous, mostly right-wing economists in particular, Krugman says we would do best to look at our political leaders. Their justifications for their policy decisions may shift, he writes, but their overall goal is crystal clear:
One of the first places to look, Krugman argues, is at the field’s recent deification of free-market economics and the “neoclassical models” that support its proponents. “[I]dealized models have a useful role to play in economics,” Krugman grants. “But starting in the 1980s it became harder and harder to publish anything questioning these idealized models in major journals.” The problem, Krugman says, is that “assuming away irrationality and market failure,” as neoclassical models did and do, “meant assuming away the very possibility of the kind of catastrophe that overtook the developed world six years ago.”
Despite these mistakes, Krugman says, the truth is that while most economists did not predict the crash, most have subsequently responded by promoting the correct Keynesian response. It’s just that policymakers haven’t been listening. “If you imagine that policy makers have spent the past five or six years in thrall to economic orthodoxy, you’ve been misled,” Krugman deadpans. “On the contrary, key decision makers have been highly receptive to innovative, unorthodox economic ideas — ideas that also happen to be wrong but which offered excuses to do what these decision makers wanted to do anyway.”
Indeed, instead of putting the lion’s share of the blame on the shoulders of economics in general or famous, mostly right-wing economists in particular, Krugman says we would do best to look at our political leaders. Their justifications for their policy decisions may shift, he writes, but their overall goal is crystal clear:
Elias Isquith is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on politics. Follow him on Twitter at @eliasisquith, and email him at eisquith@salon.com.
More Elias Isquith.
No comments:
Post a Comment