Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Einzige
LOLbertarian Douchebag
Posts: 400
Joined: 2010-02-28 01:11pm

Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

Post by Einzige »

Not directly relevant to any current news story, but it's something that bears repeating, given the confusion between the present Tea Party populists and those that share my political bent. Plus it's Murray Rothbard, one of my favorite authors:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html
There was no "Reagan Revolution." Any "revolution" in the direction of liberty (in Ronnie’s words "to get government off our backs") would reduce the total level of government spending. And that means reduce in absolute terms, not as proportion of the gross national product, or corrected for inflation, or anything else. There is no divine commandment that the federal government must always be at least as great a proportion of the national product as it was in 1980. If the government was a monstrous swollen Leviathan in 1980, as libertarians were surely convinced, as the inchoate American masses were apparently convinced and as Reagan and his cadre claimed to believe, then cutting government spending was in order. At the very least, federal government spending should have been frozen, in absolute terms, so that the rest of the economy would be allowed to grow in contrast. Instead, Ronald Reagan cut nothing, even in the heady first year, 1981.

At first, the only "cut" was in Carter’s last-minute loony-tunes estimates for the future. But in a few short years, Reagan’s spending surpassed even Carter’s irresponsible estimates. Instead, Reagan not only increased government spending by an enormous amount – so enormous that it would take a 40 percent cut to bring us back to Carter’s wild spending totals of 1980 – he even substantially increased the percentage of government spending to GNP. That’s a "revolution"?

The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year. One was "bracket creep," by which just inflation wafted people into higher tax brackets, so that with the same real income (in terms of purchasing power) people found themselves paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, even though the official tax rate went down. The other was the usual whopping increase in Social Security taxes which, however, don’t count, in the perverse semantics of our time, as "taxes"; they are only "insurance premiums." In the ensuing years the Reagan Administration has constantly raised taxes – to punish us for the fake tax cut of 1981 – beginning in 1982 with the largest single tax increase in American history, costing taxpayers $100 billion.

Creative semantics is the way in which Ronnie was able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes while raising them all the time. Reagan’s handlers, as we have seen, annoyed by the stubborn old coot’s sticking to "no new taxes," finessed the old boy by simply calling the phenomenon by a different name. If the Gipper was addled enough to fall for this trick, so did the American masses – and a large chuck of libertarians and self-proclaimed free-market economists as well! "Let’s close another loophole, Mr. President." "We-e-ell, OK, then, so long as we’re not raising taxes." (Definition of loophole: Any and all money the other guy has earned and that hasn’t been taxed away yet. Your money, of course, has been fairly earned, and shouldn’t be taxed further.)

Income tax rates in the upper brackets have come down. But the odious bipartisan "loophole closing" of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 – an act engineered by our Jacobin egalitarian "free market" economists in the name of "fairness" – raised instead of lowered the income tax paid by most upper-income people. Again: what one hand of government giveth, the other taketh away, and then some. Thus, President-elect Bush has just abandoned his worthy plan to cut the capital gains tax in half, because it would violate the beloved tax fairness instituted by the bipartisan Reganite 1986 "reform."

The bottom line is that tax revenues have gone up an enormous amount under the eight years of Reagan; the only positive thing we can say for them is that revenues as percentage of the gross national product are up only slightly since 1980. The result: the monstrous deficit, now apparently permanently fixed somewhere around $200 billion, and the accompanying tripling of the total federal debt in the eight blessed years of the Reagan Era. Is that what the highly touted "Reagan Revolution" amounts to, then? A tripling of the national debt?

We should also say a word about another of Ronnie’s great "libertarian" accomplishments. In the late 1970’s, it became obvious even to the man in the street that the Social Security System was bankrupt, kaput. For the first time in fifty years there was an excellent chance to get rid of the biggest single racket that acts as a gigantic Ponzi scheme to fleece the American taxpayer. Instead, Reagan brought in the famed "Randian libertarian" Alan Greenspan, who served as head of a bipartisan commission, performing the miracle of "saving Social Security" and the masses have rested content with the system ever since. How did he "save" it? By raising taxes (oops "premiums"), of course; by that route, the government can "save" any program. (Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket.)

The way Reagan-Greenspan saved Social Security is a superb paradigm of Reagan’s historical function in all areas of his realm; he acted to bail out statism and to co-opt and defuse any libertarian or quasi-libertarian opposition. The method worked brilliantly, for Social Security and other programs.
Any time you hear a self-proclaimed "economic conservative" blithering mindlessly the mantra of Reaganism, just point them in this direction and watch them deflate. Works like a charm.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater

Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

Post by Coyote »

Einzige, I admire you trying to be the purist and setting the record straight, etc, and sticking up for your home team. The problem is, whether anyone likes it or not, "Libertarian" has become a code-word for people who are "Republicans" but want to pretend that they are independent thinkers. The same has happened to the term "Independent".

What you're up against is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You're telling us that "no true Libertarian would believe/support this stuff", but the problem is, there are vast herds of people who are calling themselves "Libertarians" who are basically just serving as shadows to the GOP or supporting things that the GOP like.

The real problem that the Libertarians face is a total lack of cohesion in their "platform" (I used the term in quotes because, by definition of the lack of cohesion, there is no real platform). Libertarian philosophy runs the gamut from, essentially, anarchy to a weird corporate-feudalism that is basically just "socialism by corporation", where your company serves as your corporate state in which you serve, and from which all flows.

Without an agreed and recognizable platform and agreed upon principles, the Libertarians will continue to be a herd of cats spending as much time denouncing one another as they are attacking the "system" that theoretically oppresses us all. And as long as the majority of Libertarians continue to shrug and support the GOP as "good enough", this will perpetuate and Libertarians will be the dependable cuddly poodles of the Republican party as surely as some people see certain minority groups and the Greens as fairly reliable lapdogs of the Democrats.

But what you write here reminds so much of some Christians saying that "no true Christian would support Crusades/inquisitions/witch-hunts/oppressing gays" --and yet, they do, and the number of people denouncing these acts are in the minority, so that the perception of what a "true" Christian (or Libertarian) is has become irrevokably skewed.


Believe me, sir, I actually know how you feel; without a true Socialist Party worthy of the name and with the balls to stand up and say, "Yeah, goddamnit, I'm a Socialist and see no reason to apologize for it. Wanna fight, Republican girlieman?" :wink: Empathy, if not sympathy. :mrgreen:
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Donal
Redshirt
Posts: 27
Joined: 2010-06-15 04:13pm

Re: Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

Post by Donal »

I always did find it funny that Ronald Reagan never actually practiced "Reaganomics" (or "Voodoo Economics" as George Bush I is credited with coining)
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

You like Murray Rothbard? The same man who opined that in his world, there would be no attempt to succor the wounds and needs of the poor or weak, and they'd suffer and perish as they must?

Further more he's an Austrian School crank; I have about as much capability to respect any member of that as I do for autism-vaccine conspiracists and astrologists.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
Einzige
LOLbertarian Douchebag
Posts: 400
Joined: 2010-02-28 01:11pm

Re: Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

Post by Einzige »

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You like Murray Rothbard? The same man who opined that in his world, there would be no attempt to succor the wounds and needs of the poor or weak, and they'd suffer and perish as they must?

Further more he's an Austrian School crank; I have about as much capability to respect any member of that as I do for autism-vaccine conspiracists and astrologists.
Yes, I do. Rothbard shifted constantly, but by the end of his life seems to have given up on any merger between libertarianism and the political right.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater

Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

Post by Starglider »

One wonders who the last president the Libertarians actually approved of was. Herbert Hoover possibly?
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

Einzige wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:You like Murray Rothbard? The same man who opined that in his world, there would be no attempt to succor the wounds and needs of the poor or weak, and they'd suffer and perish as they must?

Further more he's an Austrian School crank; I have about as much capability to respect any member of that as I do for autism-vaccine conspiracists and astrologists.
Yes, I do. Rothbard shifted constantly, but by the end of his life seems to have given up on any merger between libertarianism and the political right.
So-fucking-what? Is your political philosophy guided by humanity or fucking principle, or for-its-own-sake spite and hatred for the American institutional right-wing?
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Re: Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

Post by Patrick Degan »

Starglider wrote:One wonders who the last president the Libertarians actually approved of was. Herbert Hoover possibly?
Cyrus Griffin —the last president of the Articles of Confederation government (1787). Although others extend their approval to Jefferson Davis, of course.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

Post by K. A. Pital »

I'd title it "Why libertarians should hate Reagan, but they really don't".
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Why libertarians hate Ronald Reagan

Post by Thanas »

Jesus Christ, Einzige - could you please stop posting libertarian propaganda from people who are sociopaths and who favor a political philosophy that either works out to "Screw everybody, I got mine" or that only works in "Everybody-is-sane-and-not-greedy-la-la-land"?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Post Reply