Hahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha!… You serious?
Yesterday, Michael Lind wrote an article at Salon titled “The questions libertarians just can’t answer.” I have a feeling he was speaking to the mute.
I found Lind’s post so entertaining, I had to make a response. Quotes are italicized, my commentary is not.
If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
If I had to explain why this is a non-sequitur, I think my head might explode. (Hint: can inventions ever be good?)
While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.
These sound like State policies, not libertarian policies.
But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world?
After thinking for the mandatory one-mississippi, I realized this was another non-sequitur. It’s right there, he is with a straight face saying “If X1 is discredited by Y, then X2 is discredited by Z.” Y and Z are not in the same class.
The rest of Lind’s article is a comparison of the United States with one other country that is ranked 2 spots better in Heritage’s economic liberty index. The United States surpasses this one country in a few (important, I’ll grant) characteristics, so he’s proven economic liberty sucks (i.e. he doesn’t say anything about the other 9 countries ranked better than the U.S. in said index).