"However, while a committed free-marketer, I do not subscribe to lessez-faire capitalism, because:
"1. To quote the noted American Conservative writer, George Will: "Capitalism is a government program." Government facilitates capitalism by creating a level (legal) playing field,"
This is a minimum function of a government anywhere: provide courts, and the rule of law (one law for everyone). I don't see this as extraneous intervention--just one reason that government is necessary.
"guaranteeing stability in the banking and investment sectors,"
Insuring banks? Not necessarily a role of a bare MINIMALIST government, but I have no trouble with government doing it. SOMEONE should do it anyway. If government stopped doing it though, insured deposits have become so much of an industry standard that someone else would do it--because no one would make deposits in an uninsured bank these days.
"prosecuting frauds (look at Marty Frankel), providing general security,"
Both minimum roles of government. Laws against fraud and violence, and maintenance of armed services. Again, nothing extraneous about this.
"providing incentives for targetted economic classes or sectors,"
This is where you start getting into favoritism and corruption. Whom do you target? Which industries do you subsidize? This is stuff we can do without.
"etc. Every time you see a government leader traveling abroad, you'll notice just outside camera range behind them is a coterie of business leaders, all going along on government coattails to lobby for business issues."
See how much business is in bed with government? They make up a class of conniving sycophants. Will makes this sound like there is nothing that can be done to change that fact--I don't think it's so hopeless. But people have to WANT minimum government, to deprive government of extraneous powers to sell. People like me have their work cut out for them in convincing them.
"2. As a few have pointed out, while business benefits society, too much of a good thing can as usual be bad. Businesses only plan according to economic quarters."
In pure capitalism with no political interference, the long-term thinking companies will be far more successful. I'm not entirely sure why many CEOs are so short-term in their thinking--I'll have to explore that more, but I don't have an MBA--but maybe part of it is that government provides them too much security (bailouts, subsidies, etc.) to make long-term thinking vital; or maybe it's the complicated tax code that actually favors losses and inefficiency in business; or maybe the political playing field changes so much (shifting political alliances and favors, etc.) that it is really quite difficult to plan long term, depending on the nature of the industry and political involvement.
But shortsightedness is not inherent to corporate heads--there are some corporations that indeed DO think very long-term (particularly in cutting-edge technology fields, but there are others too), and they do well. Of course, there is always more risk in long-term thinking and commitment, but also more potential reward....
"It is up to government to ensure against Enron-like disasters that can have society-wide economic consequences."
Prosecute and punish "white-collar" fraud like "blue-collar" fraud, and the Enron rip-off probably would never have happened. Again, prosecuting fraud is nothing special--it is expected of even the most minimal of governments. Government should do its MINIMAL, VITAL duties much better than it does by the way (maybe if they cut out their extraneous distractions...)--and be VERY draconian in cases like these. We're talking people's life savings here....
"3. The massive expansion of the Middle Class in the past two centuries has been largely as a result of intentional government "meddling"."
Care to elaborate? I think the middle class mainly evolved from the increased diversification of the economy (through technological progression among other things), and the increase in demand for skilled or specialized labor--and as this progressed, the creation of industries and services to satisfy the increased whims of more and more disposable income. Unions helped in some cases, IN SPITE OF early government attempts to crush them (by ignoring laws against violence in the case of strikebreaking thugs, among other things)--and in some industries they can grow without help (this seems to be happening slowly in Minnesota, with unionized retail workers--but has happened DRAMATICALLY over the years in carpentry and other crafts). The middle class happened because it WAS NECESSARY to sustain the needs of a developed economy. Remember that in those awful late 1800s, the economy was still DEVELOPING, industry was far more labor-intensive, and the agricultural sector was still very big.
That all said, I've often thought of a libertarian society as something that must be evolved into--i.e. it can only arise when conditions are right for it (just like the communists who say that society must pass through capitalism first, and claim they are the "next step" in political evolution). I.e., I look at a country like Guatemala (where I lived for a year), and say, "libertarianism can't happen here yet." Why? It wouldn't work with 1% of the people controlling 90% of the economy (the cronyism needs to be abolished there though--definitely--or the country will continue to go nowhere. But "progressive" liberal policies may be needed for a time, since unlike the US, Guatemala hasn't the size or resources to grow into a very diverse economy by itself--maybe a Latin American economic union would help this though). The economy is not DIVERSIFIED enough at the present time. I believe it is in the US though. Whether government had the MAJOR hand in this (and you can present your case for this and we can discuss it--I'll allow that some things it did may have been helpful in their time), or it evolved naturally from development and advancement, the fact remains that we are now diversified enough that we need not fear the economy falling into too few hands should the government disengage. I believe libertarianism, with its abolishment of corruption (done by making it impossible), is the next step of political evolution--and probably the final one....
"Governments need to level out societies somewhat, ensuring that while those who are productive are able to profit commensurately from their labors, that all society also benefits from them."
Things are really quite "level" now. Not in terms of ACTUAL wealth, but in terms of opportunity. I.e. a kid growing up in poverty can get a college education--through student loans (I have no problem with government LOANING money) or through the GI Bill (I have no problem with military benefits either--just as I don't with corporate benefits. Whatever quid pro quo is needed to attract employees is fine with me). And again, as you said, the middle class is large and robust. And the poor have TVs and cars (unlike in many other places).
So while I accept the inevitable and natural FACT that people indeed will never be "equal" in terms of wealth or ability, I believe our economy is sufficiently developed, and sufficiently dependent on skilled labor, that it can go forward uninhibited without us having to fear it.
"Better said, a government guarantees a certain living standard for all its citizens through re-distribution of wealth. This is to everyone's benefit, for reasons relating to health, etc. The measure of how much re-distribution should happen is not something any two modern capitalist countries agree on, but all do it to differing extents."
My principles tell me, "taking the fruits of one's labor against a person's will is wrong." However, as a (SLIGHTLY!) left-leaning libertarian who believes libertarianism is an EVOLUTION, the relative pittance we spend on basic welfare (compared to many other things) is not necessarily my first priority for change. I think changing the OTHER things should make the welfare state obsolete however. I.e. the increased prosperity from doing the other things, will ensure that charity becomes sufficient (if it isn't now) for the TRULY unable needy. People DO give when they see real need, for the most part. And all those middle-class democrats who favor welfare now, well, they can give their savings in taxes to charity then, and most if not all of it WILL ACTUALLY GET TO THE INTENDED NEEDY!--unlike now. Obviously they WANT to help the needy, right? I myself give to diverse charities when I can....
One thing I believe about welfare is that it creates dependence--and that this is INTENTIONAL. I.e. politicians and their organizations that promote it are helped by a bloc of dependent voters their policies have created. Remember too, it is never in the interest of a bureaucracy to take steps that would ultimately eliminate the perceived need for their work--i.e., it is never in their vested interests to SOLVE any problem, but just to remain "busy at it." Bureaucrats are ultimately parasites, to be quite blunt and honest....
But again, like I said in a post above, most government intervention is in one of two forms:
a) Cronyist favoritism, i.e. "being in bed with big business", and
b) "Progressive" policies intended to strike a balance with (a) and alleviate the worst perceived consequences of (a).
Republicans tend to be the force for (a), and democrats for (b) (although each dabbles in the other as well--increasingly so these days).
I propose removing both, to achieve a better balance and to eliminate corruption and waste. To make capitalism really be all it CAN be!
Stereotyping. I want politicians to care about other issues. I want business owners to get me quality, cheap products when I want them for a reasonable price. I don't know why we place expectations on our corperations to be anything more than moderately responsible and financially accountable. In my opinion, the most important thing an industry needs to be is efficient. The only guarantee state run industries give is that they will be inefficient.
