The following is a comment from Mencius Moldbug:
---------------------------------------------------------
If it’s not too late to add my own sad end-of-thread mot du
escalier, I have to agree with Cassandra, if from a very different
ideological perspective.
The word “neoliberal,” like “neoconservative,” has become a sick
joke. Of course it does not mean “liberal” in the Adlai Stevenson
sense. It should be “neolibertarian.” And neolibertarians have pretty
much done for libertarianism what neoconservatives did for conservatism
- that is, discredited it for about the next 5,000 years. No, really,
thanks, guys.
The central fallacy of neolibertarianism is that, since history
offers so much evidence that minimalist states (based on simple or
negative law) provide better customer service than maximalist states
(based on complex or positive law, aka central planning, aka
regulation), reducing the scope of law (aka deregulating) can generally
be expected to improve the quality of government.
This assertion is so ridiculous that to call it a theology is an
insult to theologians. It cannot withstand even a moment’s
consideration. If it were true, statism would have disappeared long
ago, rather than being anywhere triumphant.
In numerical optimization terms, forgetting of course that we could
never describe quality of government as a number, neoliberalism assumes
that the optimization surface is one big mountain with the minimal,
night-watchman state at the top. A simple hill-climbing strategy will
allow us to ascend this lovely monotonic slope.
I have no doubt that such a mountain exists. I just don’t think we’re on it.
I think the maximalist states are enormous Rube Goldberg machines
that barely work on a good day. Removing parts from these machines is
not liable to fix them. It is liable to make them break down entirely.
And the most likely result of this is a whole new Goldberg module which
is designed and assembled with absurd haste and attached with 20,000
rolls of duct tape. Sarbox, anyone?
Neoliberalism is not an effective strategy for decreasing the size
of government. It is an effective strategy for damaging government, for
discrediting libertarian ideas, and ultimately for making government
larger and less effective.
So when I look at our present financial imbalances, I see a broken
regulatory system. There are many interesting ideas for repairing this
system. I believe it would be better to replace it. But I have yet to
detect any particles of productive information emanating from those who
think that it’s great that this system is broken, or that by pulling
out more parts we could break it even better.