I tend to think that the old adage "he who pays the piper picks the tunes" applies in this case as well.
I traced some of the money and connections of the Marginal Revolution bloggers and summarized it in this essay: Charles Koch and Libertarianism - How to "Buy" a University
Your outlook is sympathetic to people like Cowen so you don't see the intellectually shoddy arguments he supplies. The most damning thing about the libertarian movement as a valid philosophical development is that it has failed to get adopted anywhere else in the world. In the US it is kept alive by the infusion of money from the wealthy backers. If it had something useful to contribute to human thought it wouldn't be on artificial life support.
The fact that it turned out to be useful to the plutocrats who run the US as a way to provide some intellectual veneer to a worldview based upon greed has allowed it to ally with the GOP and sustained it longer than would have happened otherwise. In countries where the plutocracy is not as strong there is no such movement.
On the other hand a real breakthrough like Jefferson's needs no wealthy (and secret) backers to resonate everywhere. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
I've learned from prior discussions that we will never agree on some things.
Yes, that's probably true.
I'd argue that the actual libertarian movement has failed to get much, if anything, accomplished even in the United States since the time of the Founders. Naomi Klein summarized themodern issue well last on Bill Maher's show -- this issue of libertarian rhetoric being used to promote corporatist policies. (I was impressed by her ability to recognize that we're dealing with corporatism and corporate welfare rather than pro-market policies. Many of her persuasion have a difficult time separating the two.) We hear libertarian rhetoric on economic issues -- but, of course, never social issues -- constantly, yet what we wind up with is nothing like what libertarians generally advocate.
Flat taxes are one basic premise, but we instead have a system of regressive taxation in many cases. Witness Warren Buffet discussing the fact that he pays 15% of his income to the government, while his $60k/year secretary pays about one-third of her income.
Deregulation is another, but, while regulations on energy prices and quality of service are often deregulated, to one degree or another, we often don't have deregulation of the government-provided monopoly rights. (This is a major issue with cable providers in Florida right now, as Comcast Cable obviously doesn't want to compete with superior services like Fios. It would, however, like to charge monopoly prices, of course.)
You're right about libertarian policymakers and talkingheads providing ammo (and cover) to the likes of the Bush administration, -- that's undeniably true -- but I hardly think that to be Tyler Cowen's fault. That would be a bit like blaming every socialist for Stalin -- although, granted, there was plenty of that at one time, too.
I'd also submit that Jefferson -- we're talking about Thomas Jefferson, I assume -- likely had quite a few wealthy and secret backers in his time. I'd also be curious to know of what political persuasion you'd think Jefferson to have been. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
