Sorry, I missed this point before, and it is at least at wrongheaded as your defense of libertarians and merits comment. Major corporations have entire floors of tax attorneys dedicated to ensuring that these corporations' very limited liability is as free as possible. Your comments overall seem to have little connection with the real world.
Carl Remick
-----Original Message----- From: sawicky at epinet.org [mailto:sawicky at epinet.org] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 10:35 AM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Cato Finito
The libertarian philosophy is apparently not well understood in these parts. First I resolved not to spend any time explaining or defending it. But the ideology is well disseminated over the population, so any serious political person would do well to see it in its own terms before teeing off.
I'm not familiar with Ayn Rand, but my impression is that her philsophy of 'objectivism' is at best a sub-species of libertarianism. Fascism in all its varieties is very distant from libertarianism. How could a state which foments organized violence be attributed to a philosophy which sees a limited role for the state? Nor do I doubt that a libertarian could appreciate the lack of difference between organized state violence and organized extra-parliamentary, corporate-based violence. If libertarianism has a first principle, speaking as a non-believer, I would venture to say it is the illegitimacy of violence against persons by other persons.
Inability to appreciate another's point of view reflects political maladroitness and alienation. This often is pleased to see itself as radical social criticism.
The lack of a public sector is equated here to a tyranny of business. But the libertarian vision is that free of government conniving, competition will discipline business behavior. We might disagree -- I certainly would -- but it cannot be denied that the State creates and supports business abuses, including support for monopolistic practice. More generally, government has been known to advantage rich over poor, and capital over labor (duh!). So the libertarian position isn't as dumb as it's being made out to be.
The corporation as a person theme is also misconceived. The implication is that limited liability is some kind of unique shield for capital. But obvious the owners of unincorporated business firms, of which there are many, also have ways of evading liability. Moreover, corporate capital is taxed more heavily than unincorporated, so limited liability is not free.
The libertarian vision is not inconsistent with a world of worker-owned enterprises and self-governed communities. The key proviso is that participation in all such activities be strictly voluntary.
Libertarians are more consistent than many on the left, whose notions of rights and obligations is a hash where, for instance, civil liberties are legitimate under capitalism but counter-revolutionary under socialism.
Those who cede the ideal of freedom to the right certify their own political irrelevance.
Cheers,
MBS