Sure! I'm a classical liberal and know when to admit the failures of capitalism, but I know for sure the benefits outweigh the costs! Libertarians (the people who are more radical than I) are just as prone to bias as dogmatic socialists. This is why I have a very hard time wanting to cite Ayn Rand or other people like Ludwig von Mises. They were intolerant and dogmatic in the same ways that Marx was!
Therefore, I'd rather cite minds like Hayek or Jordan Peterson. Their beliefs are worth much more merit than the former people.
As for the failures of libertarianism, their inability to accept that individuals are bound to culture whether they like it or not is a damning hole in their philosophy. Is it moral to let corporate monopolies run amok? No. Laissez-faire is a utopic pipe-dream in the same fashion as communism. Contrary to what any libertarian will think, trustbusting will do more to preserve a free market than unregulated capitalism by breaking up monopoly and monopsony.
Further, a minimum income (NOT the same thing as a minimum wage) is justified to prop up the working class in a way that doesn't adversely affect the market process, allowing more upward mobility from the bottom of the class pyramid.
See? Libertarians won't concede these points, and this is what causes their downfall. Although, their ethics of natural rights and such are not to be totally neglected, specifically when it comes to critiquing utilitarianism when it becomes excessive and detrimental to the happiness of individuals.
Last edited by Roxas; 11-27-2018 at 02:22 AM.
It takes a Teen Age Riot to get me out of bed right now.