Edwin Lyngar’s “Why I fled libertarianism—and became a liberal” is a terribly disappointing article. It is an article that deserves very little attention and I find it disappointing that an article with such little content could be published by Salon. At no point does the author criticize actual libertarian philosophy or viewpoints, except in passing. Instead he employs only strawmen and “guilt by association” fallacies to make his case against libertarianism.

Lyngar does not hide his ignorance of libertarian philosophy. In fact, he starts his article by writing “The night before the 2008 Nevada Republican convention, the Ron Paul delegates all met at a Reno high school. Although I’d called myself a libertarian for almost my entire adult life, it was my first exposure to the wider movement” (Lyngar). Any sensible person who reads these opening lines would find themselves wondering “was Lyngar ever actually a libertarian?” After all, how could he self-identify as a libertarian and know nothing about its broader movement? He then continues with his anecdote, writing

Many members of the group were obsessed with the gold standard, the Kennedy assassination and the Fed. Although Libertarians believe government is incompetent, many of them subscribe to the most fringe conspiracy theories imaginable. Airplanes are poisoning America with chemicals (chemtrails) or the moon landings were faked. Nothing was too far out. A great many of them really think that 9-11 was an inside job (Lyngar)

Lyngar is clearly committing a “guilt by association” fallacy. Just because conspiracy theorists have found a spot within the libertarian movement (an unfortunate fact) does not mean that libertarianism itself is a conspiracy movement or a flawed ideology. However, if conspiracy theories are what pushed Lyngar away, I do not see how he can justify labeling himself as a “liberal.” After all, the anti-gmo movements, anti-vaccination movements, and 9/11 truther movements are just as predominant among the left leaning activists. However, that is no reason to discount the liberal position. It is flawed reasoning to do so. Regardless, if Lyngar had spent even an hour doing research, he would have realized that there is a growing movement within the libertarian movement that is dedicated to scientific rigor and skepticism. The success of Daniel Bier’s The Skeptical Libertarian blog is a testament to that.

Lyngar goes on to give his anecdote of the 2008 Nevada Republican convention. He gives his account of the Ron Paul supporters, writing “most of [the Ron Paul] supporters were totally fucking nuts” (Lyngar). While swearing in an op-ed might be edgy, it does not add any support to Lyngar’s claims. This also goes back to the earlier point about this “guilt by association” fallacy. He still has not attacked libertarian philosophy, only attendants at a Republican convention.

Lyngar eventually makes some mention of libertarian philosophy after several paragraphs of nothing. He lists a few positive attributes of libertarian positions, writing “[libertarians] are generally supportive of the gay community, completely behind marijuana legalization and are often against ill-considered foreign wars, but a few good ideas don’t make up for some spectacularly bad ones (Lyngar). What are these supposedly bad ideas? Lyngar mentions in passing that “They hated unemployment insurance and reduced school lunches. I used to say similar things, but in such a catastrophic recession isn’t the government supposed to help? Isn’t that the lesson of the Great Depression” (Lyngar). Do libertarians really hate these things? Or are there other reasons for opposing these programs? There are in fact reasons to oppose such programs regardless of hate. Certain programs, such as school lunches, should be dealt with at a local level. Although I find it interesting that Lyngar would talk about lessons from the Great Depression. Three of the four worst years for unemployment during the Great Depression coincided with the start of FDR’s New Deal. 1933-5 had unemployment rates over 20%. After a temporary decline, the unemployment rate shot back up to 19% in 1938. Many libertarians see the New Deal not just as big government intrusion into their own personal lives. They see bad economic policy as the reasons for so much suffering during this time period. Let’s not forget that it was big government programs that were burning crops and slaughtering cattle to keep food prices artificially high during that time period. That can hardly be considered as “passionate.”

The rest of Lyngar’s article is devoid of any actual attacks against the actual libertarian philosophy. He writes “I’ve heard the n-word used in casual conversation from people I would never expect. Some people might not believe it or think I’m playing the race card, but I’m not” (Lyngar). I’m sorry Lyngar, but when you associate an entire movement with the “n-word,” you’re playing the race card. You are using it to taint an ideology that you clearly know nothing about. But even if the libertarians you know are all racist, which I highly doubt, that still is not a criticism of libertarianism.

This would not be an anti-libertarian article without the stereotypical “bleeding heart” claim towards the end. Sure enough, Lyngar writes “I began to think about real people, like my neighbors and people less lucky than me. Did I want those people to starve to death? I care about children, even poor ones. I love the National Park system” (Lyngar). This might come as a shock to Lyngar. Libertarianism is not a “pro starving child” movement. I am glad that Lyngar cares about the poor children. There are many great charities that would be willing to accept donations from him. There are many ways to take care of one another. But to paraphrase Penn Jillette, you get no moral credit for using government force to make other people give to charity.

In regards to the national parks, Lyngar has to decide if he really cares about other people or if he cares about parks instead. I say this because economics is primarily concerned with how to best allocate scarce resources. When scarce resources are efficiently allocated, the standard of living increases. Regardless of whether you think the free market or central planning is the best way to allocate resources, making resources artificially unavailable only hampers a rise in standard of living. Libertarians are not selfish, as Lyngar claims. We believe, and with good reason, that laissez-faire will lift far more people out of poverty than any centrally coordinated alternative possibly could.

Mr. Lyngar, I am sorry that you found the writings of Ayn Rand to be so disappointing. As such, I have included a list of better reading for you. If these books do not change your mind, perhaps they will at least give you an actual understanding of libertarianism. As such, I suggest that you do not write about libertarianism again until you have read through them. You will only embarrass yourself further.

.

Suggested Reading:

Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson

www.mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression

http://mises.org/document/694/Americas-Great-Depression

David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom

www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

My Own The Forgotten Tyrant (Shameless Self Plug)

http://thehumanecondition.com/2013/03/16/the-forgotten-tyrant-franklin-d-roosevelt/