I have modified this diary and cross-posted at both Daily Kos and Open Left. I focus on a different set of thoughts at each diary.

Here is one problem (perhaps THE problem) in discussions involving libertarians.

On the one hand, you have the problem of too many supporters of "free markets" being tied up in a strict utilitarian and economic mindset. Just like Ludwig von Mises in Switzerland, they see an organic garden and think "that's inefficient!" People don't don't make all of their choices based on the bottom line are lumped together as anti-market dirty hippies.

They are, in short, the vulgar libertarians that believe both that a free market means a corporate economy and that a corporate economy is a good thing.

On the other hand, you have too many "decentralists" (for want of a better term) who believe this association of the "free market" with a narrow economic mindset. It doesn't even matter if they self-identify with the left or not; a host of decentralize thinkers on the right like Caleb Stegall and Rod Dreher dislike consumerism and materialism and think that they are symptoms of the "free market."

They are, in short, the critics of the free market that believe both that a free market means a corporate economy and that a corporate economy is a bad thing.

Notice how the debate doesn't live room for the alternatives. That a free market isn't a corporate economy and that is a good thing, and the opposing belief that a free market isn't a corporate economy and that is a bad thing. I think this is the debate we should be having. I think the belief, unspoken, behind politicians like Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, and others is that we wouldn't have a corporate economy without government intervention and pro-corporate politicians are needed in order to keep our economy under the rule of the corporate elite. This is the belief that fuels the "industrial authoritarians" of the DLC and their allies the Blue Dogs, and one reason why I'm happy to see more progressive Democrats step up to purge them from the Party.

Too many people associate the "free market" with a vision of a society driven by greed. Some like this vision. Others don't. The one thing they seem to agree on is that if left to their own devices, the majority of people would give in to their greed and self-interest. Some believe this would be good. Others disagree and believe that these capitalist vices must be restrained, be it by government or tradition. Or tradition backed up by government.

Is this really an accurate assumption about human nature? Or is this just a ploy by corporations to keep us thinking that the natural state for human progress is a big corporate economy, which must either be ruled by the corporations or ruled by politicians funded by corporate money. You can have any economy you want, as long as it's corporate.

Caleb Stegall, a regional populist and decentralist of the right, outlines what he sees as necessary for the maintenance of a free society:

The civic virtues associated with widespread ownership of land, decentralized systems of trade, commitment to the common good of one's tribe and the moral sturdiness of belonging to a tradition are necessary to the continued independence of a free people.

. . .

What is called for is an anti-progressive populism; an anti-movement movement; a return to what is near, known and particular. What is called for is what I think of as regional populism. Its first political task will be to rediscover the ways citizens of the old American republic used to think and talk.

. . .

Because of this primary commitment to local and regional interests, culture and norms over national ideologies, this "folk" populism will not look like any one thing in particular, but rather like many things. It requires people who are rooted by a love of what T.S. Eliot called the "permanent things" and who are loyal above all to the tradition and membership of their "little platoons" – Edmund Burke's term for the small groups and associations to which each person belongs and which, in Burke's view, hold society together.

Folk populism requires people willing to make sacrifices to defend what they love from encroaching destruction via spaghetti-like superhighways, foreign entanglements, megacorporations and megachurches, technological developments, mass media and hypermobility.

All of these features of modernity are systems of control by other, less violent means. As Mr. Lasch cogently argued, they have the effect of harnessing and neutralizing populist discontent. How? By creating a cycle of dependence whereby local goods – intellectual, fiscal, cultural and generational capital (in the form of children) – are drawn into the maw of the centralized corporate-state. They are returned in the form of processed "goods" – products and services that prove to be remarkably habit-forming in a culture of dependency.

Here's how it works. Midwestern wheat farms are largely owned by massive agribusinesses that function as industrialized, oil-dependent factories dedicated to efficient mass production of their widget, which happens to be the wheat berry. The wheat berry is shipped to other factories for processing and packaging, shipped again to Wonder Bread Inc. for further refinement into a "bread product." This, in turn, is shipped to stadium-size retail "food outlets," purchased by the hurried and haggard farm laborer (who used to own the land the wheat was grown on) and taken home to make sandwiches for the kids to eat in front of the TV.

There's something profoundly unnatural, indeed fundamentally wrong with a consumer-driven system that alienates people from their land, their neighbors and their traditions for the sake of satisfying consumer desire. We've got to break the cycle that turns self-sufficient yeomen into docile consumers who, in the immortal words of Samuel Adams, "crouch down and lick the hands which feed them." This is the only way we will realize Bryan's dream of defending our homes, our families and our posterity.

What would this kind of regional populism look like in an actual political platform? Broadly speaking, it would seek at every turn to end the dependence of its constituents on elites. It would oppose, for example, the nationalization of any sector of our economy, from health care to agriculture. Instead, it would seek creative ways to open regional markets for regional goods.

It would seek to permit regional cultural and religious particularities to emerge from the fog of federalized regulation and be made manifest in our schools, courthouses, businesses and civic organizations. And it would provide incentives to keep cultural capital local. It would encourage people to work, study and raise families close to where they grew up. It would seek ways to promote local culture and would cultivate loyalty to our neighbors and a fierce love for our own places.

But in the end, what this kind of vibrant regionalism requires is something much more difficult to obtain than a slogan. It is a renewed appreciation for society over and against both the individual and the state. Society defined by what the agrarian essayist Wendell Berry calls "membership" – a network of social interconnectedness and shared obligation. To be a member of this kind of social order is the best hedge against manipulation by the central planning committee for "growth" and "prosperity." It is, to put it plainly, to be free.

I think Caleb Stegall's arguments bring forward to major questions. First, are his prescriptions really accurate? Do we need decentralized ownership of land, vibrant and local trade, a love of the "permanent things," and resistance to nationalization in order to promote a free society? There is a part of American political history that has always argued "Yes, we do." But today this tradition seems ignored and neglected.

Secondly, if Stegall is correct, are these prescriptions naturally created by the masses or must they be imposed and supported by the government? Many of the decentralists of the right that I mention above make an argument that such institutions and behaviors cannot survive the onslaught of consumerism and materialism brought by the free market. Is this just because they have been fooled by their fellow conservatives who preach the belief that corporate domination is natural?

In many ways, Stegall, Dreher and others like them are "left-wing conservatives." They are stuck in the same left-wing mindset that a free market is a corporate economy and this is a bad thing. Unlike traditional left-wing liberals, they turn not to government but to tradition to restrain human nature. They seem to be slowly growing in numbers over the last few years and they are becoming more vocal. Is this a sign that perhaps the left-wing mindset is growing and is ready to influence conservative politics as well?