The Libertarian Challenge

I just posted a diary at DailyKos to try to attract attention to the following challenge from Trent McBridge at Catallarchy.

So I issue a challenge. Someone, preferably of the left-leaning variety (but does not have to be), address this libertarian argument, explaining why it is either wrong or unpersuasive. Persuade me that corporate (coercive) power, to the extent that it exists, does not rest on governmental power at its foundation. I’ve never really seen anyone try, though that certainly could be my own fault for not having seen it. The most promising candidate in the comments (or in email) will be awarded a guest post to expound on this issue, along with a used (old but good condition) copy of The Machinery of Freedom.

Feel free to see if anyone tries to respond at DailyKos.

Also, Harold Meyerson has his thoughts on libertarian Democrats up at Cato Unbound. Some of his assumptions seem to be asking for a debunking as well.

But there are some basic Democratic principles that are not libertarian, and that even Markos’ Mountain State mavericks still affirm. None of them have called for privatizing Social Security. None of them have called for abolishing Medicare. They may be civil libertarians and to some degree social libertarians, but they’re not economic libertarians. And for good reason: Economic libertarianism has never been more preposterous.

. . .

After all, the New Deal didn’t arise because Americans suddenly awakened and proclaimed themselves progressive. It arose because the unchecked power and unregulated practices of major corporations and banks and the market itself led to an economic disaster.

Since when did the Federal Reserve equal unchecked and unregulated?

I think Cato has inadvertantly sabotaged its own debate on the notion of libertarian Democrats by selecting Bruce Reed and Harold Meyerson to follow-up on kos's post. Reed spent the bulk of his essay arguing why libertarians should vote Dem in 2006 and paid scant attention to the libertarian-Dem political relationship. Meyerson wrote a ham-handed essay exolting the virtues of libertarian and Dem convergence on social issues, but then blasted them with his typical, ham-handed populist message.

I liked McBride's take on corporate power, but I thought that Lizardbreath's post on Unfogged was even more interesting:

This critique is true as far as it goes -- corporations can't jail you or take your property away without state assistance or at least toleration of their behavior -- but I don't think it gets you to the libertarian position: that 'reducing the power of the state' will make people freer, because if the state hasn't got the power, than corporations can't co-opt it. In practice, it's not clear to me that 'reducing the power of the state' is possible, short of a literal anarchy in which the government has no police powers at all. When people talk about reducing the power of government, they generally seem to be talking about simplifying government: fewer regulations, fewer agencies. But no matter how simple government gets, it's going to retain the power to punish crime, and to decide disputes about property ownership in the courts -- it has just as much power, the power is simply exercised in less complex ways. And once it has those powers, and no more, that's enough for corporations to co-opt in ways that make individuals less free.

If we go back before the New Deal and the modern regulatory state, in a time when government was as 'small' as possible, government power was still used by corporations to oppress individuals.

This is an excellent point. Although there are a few areas where libertarians advocate rolling back government power (eminent domain and the trade in firearms are the only two issues that readily come to mind), we are mostly arguing that government power should be exercised differently - i.e. in a simplier and more restrained fashion.

I think that if we got to the point where the government was a simple as punishing crimes and decidign disputes of property rights, the possibility for corporations to manipulate the system to make individuals less free would be greatly reduced, which is largely our point. Like terrorism, I don't think you can totally eliminate the threat of corporations, but through limited government you can handle the threat.

the reason why we need so much of the regulatory and welfare state is to clean-up the mess of privilege that rewards rent-seeking behavior and socializes costs in the first place.

what libertarian democrats should be arguing for is FIRST remove the privileges and take the rent that had been privatized and socialize it by turn it into a citizens dividend (access to the commons is an individual right - the commons are not collectively/jointly owned).

then and only then can we start to reduce the regulations and entitlements...

Total agreement.

This is all policy wonkish philosophical gobbley-gook. For all those pushing this mythical "libertarian Democrat" idea all of a sudden, show us ONE SINGLE ELECTED LIBERTARIAN DEMOCRAT IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES???

(An no NH Rep. Steven Villaincourt does not count. He done switched to Republican. wah, wah wah).

There are over 30 (!!!) elected libertarian Republican legislators in the Nation right now, most of whom are former or current members of the Libertarian Party.

There are 5 to 6 libertarian Republican Congressman most of whom have strong ties to the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement, INCLUDING A FORMER LIBERTARIAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND ANOTHER GUY WHO IS THE FOUNDER OF THE MODERN LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT!!!

So where's the libertarian Democrat version of Ron Paul? Where's the libertarian Democrat Jeff Flake? Name one former Libertarian Party member now serving in a State Legislator as a Democrat?

Waiting.... Still waiting....

And please no boring-ass policy wanker responses. Talk to me about cold hard politics. I'm not at all interested in graphs and charts and footnoted position papers. SHOW ME ELECTED LIBERTARIAN DEMOCRATS SERVING IN OFFICE.

If you can't do that, than you need to just shut up about this libertarian Democrat idea.