I wouldn't say it's the exact opposite, though it's not libertarian. It does fit into a Hayekian view that government intervention is justified to promote free markets and competition. That's not quite libertarianism, but Hayek fans are often found near libertarian circles.

It seems to be somewhat an ends/means disagreement. Many branches of libertarianism argue that government interference with private contracts is inherently wrong. Other pro-capitalist views (Hayek among them), though, focus more on the outcomes, arguing that capitalism is good because competitive markets with decentralized decision-making mediated by price signals produce the best outcomes for humanity. Those holding the latter view don't have as blanket an opposition to all kinds of regulation, but would allow some kinds of regulation that are narrowly tailored towards promoting competitive markets. Adam Smith is probably the earliest precursor of that view; for example, he opposed most regulation, but supported requiring employers to pay wages in silver, because he thought on balance, prohibiting employers from paying their employees in IOUs promoted a functioning market economy, so the interference with the employer's absolute freedom to negotiate payment methods with their employees was justified. Hayek outlined a number of kinds of intervention he felt justified as well.

I mean, the disagreement certainly isn't over if certain government interventions can improve market efficiency, since they certainly can. But I disagree that the disagreement is really as principled as you say, over if the ends justify the means. The disagreement is most likely over if you can somehow give a government body a few powers (like those Hayek outlines) without ending up with something like we have now.

Great post.

>I would venture to say that [Hong Kong] is poster child of libertarianism

This is the problem with the post. Libertarianism does not lead to market freedom. It does for a very short time until someone becomes dominant and uses that dominance to buy or force out everyone else. The US is closer to libertarian ideas, which is why it has a less free market than other places that understand that capitalism can't work without regulations (the right regulations).

I think you may be confusing libertarianism and anarchy.

In fairness, many self-identified libertarians seem to have the same issue.

No, I actually view anarchy as potentially workable [1]. American libertarianism is closest to Ancap. I find them both unworkable for the same reason.

[1] Probably to complex too explain here but the key is that Government and money depend on each other. You can't have one without the other.

I think you may be confusing "anarcho-capitlism" and "anarchy." (and "anarchism," for that matter, though I guess this isn't the time and place to argue over "is an-cap anarchism?")

I agree, and I see the misnomer. I'm not a libertarian, so duly apologized if I did use the term incorrectly. But what I meant to say is Hong Kong's economy is very free.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest-econonom...