If you’re so sensitive, you might give some thought to how you come across when you post in a new venue. “Asshole” was, IMO, a pretty fair response to your initial tone. When you come across as a troll trying to provoke a negative reaction, don’t be surprised when you get one.

Proudhon did indeed have some pretty Neanderthalish sexual, racial and ethnic opinions–as did Jefferson, Marx, and most other major figures of the nineteenth century. They bear no necessary connection or integral relationship to the core principles of his economic thought.

And I disagree strenuously that big business would thrive absent state intervention in the economy. “Corporate welfare” includes transportation subsidies, which make market areas (and hence firm size) artificially large. Without such subsidies to distribution costs, we’d have a decentralized economy of primarily small-scale manufacturing for local markets. The state has played a central role, by subsidizing capital accumulation, R&D, and technical education, in promoting capital-intensive, deskilling forms of production that shift control of work away from the shop floor and put power in the hands of managers and engineers. In addition to corporate welfare, there are cartelizing regulations which make stable oligopoly markets possible, and so-called “intellectual property” laws which are the single biggest force for cartelization in the corporate economy. All the major corporate sectors in the global economy follow business models directly dependent on “intellectual property”: entertainment, software, biotech, agribusiness, electronics, etc.

There are also major forms of privilege which predate the corporate economy, but are integral to capitalism (as opposed to the free market). There are special legal privileges (like market entry barriers for banking and state enforcement of absentee titles to vacant and unimproved land) which make land and capital artificially scarce and expensive for labor, and thus enable their owners to extract rents at the expense of labor.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that right wing libertarians are not willing to hold their allies to account. Pinochet had no respect for the rights we supposedly hold so dear. When Friedman met with him, it was already well known that the Chilean military had been crushing all opposition through arbitrary arrests and executions.

By your logic, then Friedman, The Cato Institute and most libertarians also love Fidel Castro, whose history was one of human rights abominations:

Of course those who believe the [U.S. trade] embargo [on Cuba] is not a good idea, for instance Milton Friedman and the Pope, are hardly pro-Castro people; yet any exchange on the subject tends to bog down with a description of the latest Castro atrocity, and this is never difficult to come up with because he is a very reliable supplier.

Friedman was consistent in his view that free markets and trade lead to less emiseration of a nation’s people, and possibly to greater freedoms over-all. And he held that view not only wrt to Pinochet’s Chile, but also vis-a-vis Communist Cuba.

And again, I respectfully challenge you to answer my questions - how are my observations about right wing libertarianism inaccurate?

See above about Friedman. And Kevon Carson’s last comment.

Take a think take such as Cato. They adamantly oppose corporate welfare, but do they get some money from big tobacco? Yup. Because their interest in the right of property owners to permit smoking on their premises, and to permit adults to choose to smoke without sin taxes that amount to prohibition — taxes that induce black markets — happen to converge with R. J. Reynold’s interest in selling its products.

But Cato does not support tobacco subsidies.

I’ll just give one example of your building in your conclusions, by way of illustration. Corporations are not maintained in existence by the state through corporate welfare. They are maintained in existence by the state through corporations law. No corporations law, and you would find those enterprises only holding together as partnerships, and soon reorganising themselves on the smaller scale that would be practical without that outside assistance (or collapsing if the people in them went into denial).

This is exactly what I mean when I say that right wing libertarians are not willing to hold their allies to account. Pinochet had no respect for the rights we supposedly hold so dear. When Friedman met with him, it was already well known that the Chilean military had been crushing all opposition through arbitrary arrests and executions.

Since we’re all creatures of (ahem) “free will” I would respectfully submit that Friedman had the ability to say “Hell no, I’m not going to help you! You’re a murderous tyrant who came to power in a military coup!” But he didn’t. He CHOSE to go to Chile and give Pinochet financial advice, which included suppressing labor unions and other activists.

As far as Women’s Studies departments not spending a lot of time on Rand, well, I’ll defer to you on that. But the thing about Rand’s philosophy was it had absolutely no tolerance for dissent. As you know, Rand demanded absolute obedience from her followers - just one of the reasons why Objectivism is often classified as a cult of personality. I think its disingenuous of you to minimize her influence (”she caused some to look at libertarianism”) when we both know that her influence on modern right wing libertarianism was substantial - Atlas Shrugged is the best selling book of all time behind the Bible and the Little Red Book.

And again, I respectfully challenge you to answer my questions - how are my observations about right wing libertarianism inaccurate?

Kevin - While you are correct that large corporations today enjoy a great deal of support from the government, I would respectfully submit that the majority of multi-nationals need no government help in holding on to the power they wield. The corporate welfare they receive is simply icing on the profit - its not necessary to their survival.

Let’s say that tomorrow all corporate welfare came to an abrupt halt - something both of us would undoubtedly like to see - are you suggesting these corporations would suddenly be in danger of collapsing? Some would, I suppose, but the majority would continue to be profitable, politically strong institutions.

While I agree that corporate welfare needs to be eliminated, I don’t share your view that the main function of government is to protect big business from market competition. That’s one lamentable aspect of our present system but again, I would argue that is the result of our cultural, socio-economic deference to the capitalist system.

Oh, and just so we’re on the same page, I think the free market works great - when we’re talking about the swap meet, garage sales and Craigslist.

I AM aware of people who call themselves left wing free market libertarians - however, I have a hard time understanding just what about them makes them “left wing” when the end result of what they propose would ultimately be a tyranny of capitalist institutions and a mimimalization of rights enjoyed by workers.

I’m also familiar with Proudhon, an early anarchist or “mutualist,” who, for whatever insights he offered, was intellectually compromised by a virulent anti-semitism as well as support for the Southern states during the American civil war (a view shared by Paleolibertarian Lew Rockwell). Its my understanding that Proudhon regarded African-Americans as an inferior race.

However, I imagine you are much more of an expert on him than I am, so if that’s not true, please correct me. If it is true, I’m sure you’ll have no problem in acknowledging it as a historical fact.

I can appreciate that “free market” rhetoric is employed by corporate apologists in order to defend the interests of big business - however, I would argue that regardless of who is employing the rhetoric, the net result is the same.

When I originally posted this, I assumed, perhaps inadequately, that I was addressing so-called “small l libertarians”: Objectivists, Paleolibertarians, anarcho-capitalists and other advocates of “free market capitalism.” I respect the fact that you don’t necessarily view yourself in this light and that there are a variety of libertarians who favor unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism.

My position is that, for whatever their negligible differences, the end result of what capitalist-libertarians propose is a system that vests increasing power in the hands of the few while disenfranchising the many.

Oh yeah, and thanks for not calling me an “asshole” again - I’m terribly sensitive to name calling.

“What I’m arguing is the free market fundamentalism that right wing libertarians endorse is largely to blame for the ills you purportedly oppose - whether we’re talking about the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex or the systematic racism and sexism that permeates nearly every institution at one time or another, can be attributed in part to this slavish devotion to capitalism and a reluctance to hold institutions to account.”

How could genuine free market principles be to blame for corporate power, when large corporations couldn’t even exist without the state propping them up? The main function of big government is to protect big business from market competition, and to subsidize its operating expenses.

I’m about as close to a “free market fundamentalist” as you’re likely to find. And one of the central themes in my writing has been what I call “vulgar libertarianism”: the misappropriation of “free market” rhetoric by corporate apologists, in order to defend the interests of big business.

Were YOU even aware there were such things as left-wing free market libertarians?

As for Reason and Rand, there is no denying that she caused some to look at libertarianism, so one cannot leave her out of any history or discussion of the mvmt. (And I note, very few Women’s Studies programs spend any, or at least very little, time on the one female American of the 20th century who had an enormous following and inspired a great deal of political discussion.)

But she was flawed. Most so, imo, in her fiction, which I find intolerable. It is so polemical it mirrors the worst Stalinist agitprop of the ’30s. All of her heroes are perfect; any character with any socialist leanings is pathetically pathological. There are no dimensions — no full humanity — to her protagonists or antagonists.

Look, if you are left-wing in America, there is no getting around the influence and contributions that that totalitarian, CPUSA member Stalinists made to that mvmt. But who on the left today is a Stalinist?

Anyway, I have no problem with school choice vouchers, as long as they are given to parents, who make the choice of school. SCOTUS says the same — that parents as intermediaries save vouchers from being an Establishment Clause violation — and for once they got something right. And you know, these could be used at high schools for gay teens, for Little Red Schoolhouses, or whatever.

Please accept my apologies for assuming you supported Bush out of love for his pro-business policies and appointments when you actually supported him out of irrational fear.

That’s certainly more honest than most of the answers I get from right wing libertarians.

I’m well aware of Rand’s differences with RWLs, going all the way back to the 1960s. However, you and I both know that the Libertarian Party’s platform of free market capitalism, personal choice, etc. is part and parcel of her philosophy and was an extension of the Objectivist movement. Yeah, she probably wasn’t so hot on the idea of legalizing pot and prostitution, but her ideals on capitalism and “free choice” were fundamental to the movement. You DID see the issue of Reason magazine that is dedicated to her life and work, didn’t you? So at least one of your sources of information seems to think a lot of her.

But you’re not a fan of hers - okay, that’s fine. Who is it you turn to for inspiration? Oh yeah, the Cato Institute. A right wing libertarian think tank which honors the memory of Milton Friedman by naming their annual awards after the man.

And Friedman sure was a staunch supporter of freedom and liberty wasn’t he? Er, well, unless you count the time he went to Chile to advise the murderous Augusto Pinochet (who came to power by violently overthrowing a democratically-elected president) on how to liberalize the nation’s economy, largely through clamping down on labor unions and marginalizing dissent.

What else does the Cato Institute advocate? Oh yeah, public subsidizing of private schools, including parochial institutions. Well, maybe you free market fundamentalists don’t have any problem with the state supporting organized religion but I do.

I’m sorry you couldn’t be bothered to respond to my earlier questions regarding the “stereotypes” to which I ostensibly subscribe.

Again, I’m completely open to the idea that I’m wrong about all of this - so please tell me how my views of right libertarianism are inaccurate.

So what’s my point to all this? Am I trying to sabotage a good working relationship with people who share my view on the war? Absolutely not. What I’m arguing is the free market fundamentalism that right wing libertarians endorse is largely to blame for the ills you purportedly oppose - whether we’re talking about the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex or the systematic racism and sexism that permeates nearly every institution at one time or another, can be attributed in part to this slavish devotion to capitalism and a reluctance to hold institutions to account.

All I ask is that you hold yourself and your allies (and the institutions you reflexively defend) to the same moral, ethical and legal standards that you hold your adversaries.

If that makes me an “asshole,” well, I’ve been called worse.

Not. Even. Sorta. Bush is a coproratist; I’m not. The sole reason I voted for him is because I had not yet emerged from the confusion — and yes, fear — after 9/11 ands those subsequent months of anthrax attacks. I’m not saying it was intelligent, but you asked why, and that’s it.

Ayn Rand, btw, was not a libertarian, as she was the first to insist. She despised libertarians because they did not adopt her all-encompassing philosophy of Objectivism. I and most libertarians are not Objectivists. Some of us (tho not including me) believe in a personal god, which she considered demented and immoral.

Piekoff is her Objectivist heir, and does no speak for libertarians. As for Lew Rockwell, I do not care much for him. I fall into what some pejoratively describe as the “cosmopolitan” libertarianism fold of Reason magazine and The Cato Institute. We do not oppose all regulation, but may have very different notions of when and how it should be implemented.

Finally, if you think Kevin reacted badly, you may want to reread your first post. You pretty well asked for it.

I never pretended to “know everything” as your overly-emotional supporter, Kevin, says. So please, instead of insulting me, why not try to defend your belief system?

“Stereotypes”? So enlighten me! I base my statements solely on the writings and stated positions of right-wing libertarians from across the spectrum including Rand, Pleikoff, Rockwell, et. al.

From everything I’ve read, right wing libertarians (rightly) support civil liberties, but staunchly oppose any law which would guarantee those liberties. Is that a stereotype or a stated position?

From everything I’ve read, right wing libertarians (rightly) support the legalization of drugs and prostitution, but staunchly support an individual state’s right to pass whatever laws they see fit - including criminalizing these things and putting individuals in prison if that is the will of the state. Is that a stereotype or a stated position?

From everything I’ve read, right wing libertarians advocate elimination of all business regulation and eradicating minimum wage in a thinly veiled attack on working people. So again, enlighten me. How is this a stereotype? I thought it was part of your platform.

It seems to me that basically what you people desire is a tyranny of business. You say its all about the individual, but you conveniently neglect to consider such things as how differing socio/economic value systems and environment help to shape a person’s choices in life. To the right wing libertarian, everyone has free choice and some people will make good decisions and some will not. If a company is acting in a way that is oppressive or abusive, the market place (and ONLY the market place) should rectify the situation, right?

I would respectfully submit that at the heart of right wing libertarianism is a patent contempt for humanity. You could call it tough love. Love for our friends and tough for everyone else.

I appreciate that you’re anti-war. But a broken watch is also right twice a day.

Here’s what it all comes down to, near as I can tell - where as right wing libertarians would absolve economic institutions of responsibility for their actions, left wing libertarians believe that both individuals and institutions need to be held to account for the predictable consequences of their actions.

Oops! I’m sorry! Were you even aware there were such things as “left libertarians”?

Mona, I would submit that you are the one who lives in a cocoon - you’re the one who voted for Bush and mea culpas aside, I’m sure you had your reasons why you would support someone who, prior to his re-election, had already launched the country on an insane war both abroad and at home. So what were those reasons? Did it have anything to do with, oh I don’t know, his pro-business policies? Seriously, I’m not being presumptuous, I’m just guessing!

And to Kevin Carson - Mona mentions that she voted for Bush in ‘04 which is what I was referring to. I would respectfully submit that maybe it is YOU who is “just too fucking stupid to read.”

Go ahead, fire away.

But I do, in fact, support school choice.

Not Ayn Rand, tho. Never had particular use for her.

But anyhoo, I second Kevin — stay within your little cocoon in which stereotypes are all neat, and don’t require one to make distinctions or argue merits of positions. It’s the sort of “thinking” that causes Coulter’s books about “all liberals being treasonous” to sell well, so you have a lot of intellectual company in form, regardless of differences in substance.

You know, facts like Roy Childs regarding big business as the main force behind the growth of big government, and his dismissal as liberal intellectuals as the running dogs of big business. Or Rothbard’s reference to “our corporate state subsidizing the operating costs of big business and subsidizing accumulation.”

Or the fact that THIS FUCKING BLOG was set up as a venue for building common ground among antiwar liberals and libertarians, and that everybody who writes here is adamantly antiwar and anti-Bush.

Such inconvenient facts don’t fit into Eric Rife’s little morality play. He already “knows” everything, and the facts be damned.

Hell, Mona explicitly denounced both Bush and the “war machine,” and yet Eric refers to “your support of Bush.” So maybe he’s just too fucking stupid to read.

I never fail to be amused when some pea-brained ignoramus not only lectures me about what my own belief system is, and not only gets it wrong, but has the nerve to imply that I’M the one who’s wrong about it. It’s like one of those insufferable elementary school teachers patiently explaining to a little kid that they spell their name wrong–only it’s much more refreshing when they’re honestly abusive and rude, like this asshole.

This morally-bankrupt philosophy has led such libertarian heroes as Ayn Rand to defend child labor and to excuse the horrors of slavery as mere bumps in the road to the otherwise glorious utopia of unfettered, unregulated capitalism. And let’s not forget her opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1975.

And please don’t talk about gay rights - when it comes to gay rights in the workplace, right wing libertarians believe business owners should be able to hire and fire anyone for any reason. Further, they argue that property owners should be able to sell to whomever they desire and be legally entitled to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation.

Further, right wing libertarians are big proponents of school vouchers whose net effect is government sponsored parochial institutions and private schools.

Don’t kid yourself Mona - if you’re anything like the other “small l” libertarians, you’re a conservative through and through.