ROCKMAN,

I find your repeated claims to libertarianism to be somewhat perplexing. The other day you said that “I’m about as libertarian as it gets” and then proceeded to follow that comment up with this one:

...after hearing the thoughts of many smart folks here it seems that much (or all) of the current economic problems can be traced to the efforts of congress: grow the economy by ramping the housing industry by changing the regs to allow the sub prime market to expand. (emphasis mine)

But when we “changed the regs,” were we not following the libertarian prescript? After all, what is the libertarian creedo if it is not this: “It is only required to eliminate the foolish restraints and controls which former generations have sought to place” upon us? (Niebuhr) And is that not exactly what we did? Did we not remove all, or practically all, restraints and controls on the finance industry?

Another part I find confusing is this:

But it was a high risk ploy and we got called on it. We all allowed this to happen either by ignorance, not paying attention, honest but misguided compassion or by just plain greed. Thus we are responsible to cover the bet IMO.

To begin with, there seems to be a conflation here between crimes of commission and crimes of omission.

Second, it asks us to believe that a person buying a house and taking out a mortgage has, or should have, as much knowledge, training and information regarding finance as a bank president and/or his staff.

And third it ignores the fact that there are 116 million households in the U.S., and even if the most pessimistic projections come true, and housing prices drop another 40%, there will eventually only be about 12 million foreclosures. Granted, many more households will end up being upside down on their mortgage. But many will continue to “do the right thing” and pay their mortgage, even though it might not be in “their best interest” to do so. So 10% of households, plus a handful finance industry people, does not constitute “all of us.”

The other thing I find very puzzling is this:

Unfortunately many of us make poor choices and suffer the consequences. Having our leaders screw up doesn’t help but we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for our own lack of effort. With all that is wrong with the world at the moment I still see that my biggest current concerns are the result of my own poor choices in the past.

In an increasingly complex and complicated world we rely more and more upon experts to make decisions for us. If the experts we rely on are negligent, or criminal, in their duties, are we then to cast blame upon ourselves?

Furthermore, when you write that “I still see that my biggest current concerns are the result of my own poor choices in the past,” that indicates that you have a conscience. It indicates that you have engaged the issues, considered them from all sides, understood the choices they led to, and accepted the full consequences of the choices you made. How do you square that with the libertarian paradigm, with its P-utility maximization viewpoint, and its emphasis on pleasure, self-gratification, self-interest and greed? Or, as Etzioni puts it, “to the notion that people act morally only as long as it makes sense in economic terms: ‘Economic theory...tends to suggest that people are honest only to the extent that they have economic incentives for being so.’ “(Johansen cited by Sen, 1977)? After all, have you not noticed that some of the greatest champions of the libertarian credo, who only a couple of years ago were worshiping at the altar of free market fundamentalism, are now calling for mark to market to be done away with?

From the ideals you espouse in your comments, I don’t see you fitting the definition of a modern-day libertarian at all. Perhaps the libertarians of old—Smith, Richardo, Mills, etc. But this modern bunch? No way.