Libertarian = Socially Liberal ?

George Gilder isn’t a name that comes up on the blogs, despite having a noted exchange with Steve on immigration and having views that many IQ realists could agree on.

A believer in biological determinism (from what I could infer) who wrote the book on supply side economics as well as a vocal critic of feminism, he would agree with this blog’s position on immigration and how in a free market and a meritocracy we shouldn’t limit our labor options. In agreement with Steve, the 40% value quoted by Gilder probably is probably sketchy, but that doesn’t preclude the potential economic gain from more high-tech immigration. Through technology and capitalism, we can immanentize the eschaton, as much as the libs – in their war on free markets, consumer spending, web 2.0 and success – want America to regress. However, in disagreement with some techno-utopians, there will be no ‘post scarcity’. This is obvious by how real prices for essentials from food, air travel, gasoline, daycare, healthcare and education have rapidly become more expensive in parallel with nosebleed technological progress. TVs and computers are cheaper, but by design, in order to keep total real consumption rising, everything else must keep going up faster than inflation.

On a related note, an interesting article

In the first section, Jim is pretty much saying that free market capitalists are social liberals or that to be a capitalist means you’re a libertarian.

How about a technological capitalist that appropriates elements of conservatism such as controlling entitlement spending and support of free market capitalism, as well as believing in HBD & biological determinism in addition to supporting the fed, limited crony capitalism, and eugenics? As in the example of George Gilder, not all market libertarians are social libertarians. Another example is Murray Rothbard. The system we have today is one of a free market with some government intervention, which seems pretty good compared to an extreme of no government or no private enterprise. Sometimes crony capitalism could be justified if government investment represents an optimal allocation of capital that would not have otherwise occurred, such as as the super-effective 2008 bank bailouts that quickly stemmed the financial panic. Even Milton Friedman acknowledged some government was necessary to protect private rights and national security. Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand’s number one disciple, helped engineer multiple bailouts such as after the Black Monday crash of 1987. Neoconservatism is an obvious example of technological capitalists that are neither libertarian purists nor social liberals.

On a whole bunch of social issues, from medical marijuana to birth control to assisted suicide, Milton Friedman was socially liberal, but also opposed all handouts – a position welfare liberals would oppose. But because he supposed some government, he wasn’t a libertarian purist.

I guess one of the nice things about the Grey Enlightenment is because it’s so similar to the system we have today (with some tweaks) it doesn’t take much mental gymnastics to try to make it work.

After the neocon flameout of 2008, some conservative types began embracing weath-destroying economic ideas. This means complaining about the debt being too high, crony capitalism, the fed, the concentration of power among ‘elites’, or being concerned about wealth inequality. On all issues, the welfare left has gone further to the left, but on economics the right had moved to the left. On social issues the right has moved further right. Free markets and supply side economics doesn’t seem to have the popularity among the mainstream right as a decade ago. But with the economy doing well, rising tensions overseas, the web 2.0 boom, and stocks & real estate prices surging, this blog predicts neoconservatism will make a sudden and lasting comeback.

Comments are closed.