EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
In his program on the Bulgarian National Radio "Deconstruction", Mr. Petar Volgin embarks on a spatial commentary on something that he clearly has not studied or understood - namely the philosophy of libertarianism or classical liberalism. He takes the opportunity of the appointment of the new Minister of Finance, who defines himself as an admirer of the aforementioned movement, and manages to demonstrate why the national radio should not receive a penny of my money.
To begin with, Mr. Volgin recognizes privatization as something supported by free-market advocates, and he is absolutely right. Libertarian philosophy stands behind the ideas of private property and all its virtues – from the incentives it creates for initiative and creativity to the opportunity for everyone to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
At the same time, the radio host adds to privatization "layoffs and income freezes." Of course, he is wrong here. Free trade and entrepreneurship create the exact opposite - prosperity and wealth, and the problems that Volgin associates with privatization are a consequence of the fact that industries have been state-owned for decades and are therefore inefficient and bankrupt.
Volgin explains (correctly) the main idea behind Friedrich Hayek's famous work "The Road to Serfdom" - any intervention by the state gradually leads to an increase in its power and the imposition of tyranny. The strange thing comes from the assessment that this has not happened - something that a brief look at the reality in which we live is enough for us to assess as false. Since Hayek's time, state redistribution (i.e., income deprivation) has increased enormously, reaching more than 50% of production, in countries such as the USA and Denmark politicians are trying to control what we eat by banning fatty and sweet foods, and in Cyprus the state is literally denying savers access to their money.
The radio story continues that thanks to the pro-active role of the state, the West has overtaken the East. On the contrary, because of the smaller role of the state, the economies (built in a time of minimal state intervention) of the capitalist world have still “defeated” those of the socialist world. Mr. Volgin seems to forget that the basic characteristic of socialism is the management of the means of production by its favorite politicians and officials.
For the radio host, the ideas of John Maynard Keynes have contributed to the development of Western economies. He probably thinks that Keynesian economics has nothing to do with the huge economic bubbles, the gigantic debt in all Western countries, or the constant printing of money by central banks.
The latest comments cross all boundaries of serious analysis. All Bulgarian governments since the beginning of the transition have been defined as “followers of the Austrian school” – yes, including those of the socialist party. Volgin’s nonsense reaches its peak when the New Bulgarian University, President Nixon and the Conservative Party in Great Britain are defined as “libertarians”. His obvious lack of information is evident in the fact that he excludes the possibility that environmentalists are admirers of free human relationships – HERE you can see for yourself that this is not the case.
The whole situation is truly ridiculous, if one considers that the salary of this excellently informed journalist is paid by the "evil private individuals", some of whom are libertarians. Such a farce is only possible thanks to the state and its taxes.
Well, what do you want from one of the breed of left-wing Intellectuals, followers and glorifiers of Naomi Klein and the rest of the breed of left-wing overseas feminist and politically correct trash?
Libertarianism is no less dangerous than communism and any other extreme ideology. It is a utopia. Applied in its pure form, like any other ideology, it will lead to catastrophic consequences. People are not free and are not able to tolerate freedom because it is not in their nature. They are born and die in unfreedom because they have chosen neither life nor death. This gives rise to the violence and power of ideologies and religions and the desire for freedom, for escape, for salvation. Some seek refuge in faith, others in love, others in money, others in the power of money, etc., etc. The three main powers and freedoms are Economic, Spiritual and Political. The important thing is that they are divided, and depending on the degree to which they are divided, societies are differently "free". Every freedom has its power and responsibility. The attempt at freedom without responsibility leads nowhere. Every pleasure is paid for.
Libertarianism is indeed a utopia, and more vague and vague than communism. First of all, libertarians must clearly define their concept of freedom, because it may turn out that in this concept they see only their own freedom and completely deny that of others. I have been armed with superficial and pretentious reasoning. The state is not necessarily bad or good. It is what it is in the hands of. If the state disappears or is limited to the sanitary minimum, then very essential functions for the whole society may be uncovered - education, healthcare, culture, etc. Any verbal balancing and reference to convenient "authorities" will not be able to repair the damage from practicing "libertarian" ideas. They will simply lead to a rapid division in society, concentration of resources and power at one pole, and slavery and misery (which have nothing to do with the understanding of individual freedom). Every utopia may contain tempting ideas and hopes, but attempts to implement them lead only to misfortune and suffering. Freedom is still something relative and has reasonable limits - it is what preserves human personality and dignity in the "herd" community, but it is also something that has no meaning outside this "herd" community. Let's take it easy with utopias. When something is not good, it is best to admit that it is so and not strain our vocal cords unnecessarily.
There is a huge difference between what neoliberalism is on paper and in practice.