I’m still waiting for one of the Libertarians here to answer the question that I raised from my post above: How would deregulation address environmental pollution by corporations or prevent it from happening all over the U.S.?
Libertarians typically say “take ’em to court” in situations like this, but that is impractical. An individual with cancer who has had the value of their real estate decimated by pollution is not going to be able to win in court against a giant multi-billion-dollar corporation. They will most likely end up dead or bankrupt before ever collecting a dime. The victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill fought Exxon in court for 20 years. So court is not a practical option.
The great thing about environmental regulation is that it is a form of strict liability. Environmental regulation can make it illegal for a Koch Industries subsidiary to pour formaldehyde into a stream. In a court-setting, where there is no regulation, the cancer-stricken individual is going to have to prove that it was the formaldehyde that gave them cancer. That may be tough to do and will for sure be expensive. A deregulated society will disempower individuals while empowering corporations to rape and pillage at will.
Another problem with deregulation is that it kills jobs:
The deregulation of the mortgage industry allowed for massive, fraudulent malinvestment to take place which resulted in a bubble. When that bubble popped, not only did all of that paper wealth disappear, but so did a lot of the never-would-have-been-created-without-the-bubble jobs. Think about all the MIT grads that went into finance as opposed to going into an occupation that results in the production of real goods. Think about all the people that became mortgage brokers so they could make a quick buck instead of using their time to build other skills that could have been used in the ‘real’ economy (as opposed to the fake finance economy).
There are some parts of Libertarianism that I like. For example, I was glad to see that the Fed was recently audited. I think both Occupy Wall Street and Libertarians are against the bailout of financial institutions (as am I).
However, there is a lot about Libertarianism that I don’t like. I’m not in favor of dismantling the public-school system. A lot of public elementary and high schools are closing in California which I think is a bad thing. The quality of higher education is also deteriorating which I think is a bad thing. To me, cuts to education are short-sighted and will hurt us in the long run. Additionally, I’m not in favor of having the top 1% pay a lesser tax rate than many of those in the bottom 80%. I don’t equate elimination of environmental regulations with ‘liberty’ as many Libertarians seem to do.
I also think Libertarian’s focus on the public debt is misguided. Japan has twice the debt-to-GDP ratio as the U.S. and their unemployment is below 5%:
In summary, there are a few things that I like about Libertarianism, but mostly I see it as a way for the top 1% to manipulate the bottom 99% into dismantling the good parts of government (e.g., environmental regulation, public education, retirement programs like Social Security and Medicare) while leaving most of the bad parts of government (e.g., private contractors who gouge the taxpayer) in place.
