Can Authortarians Even Attempt an Honest Argument against Liberty

So, if you think Salon is a neutral journalistic blog, think again. They're reprinting Alternet articles. I wonder how many they've reprinted from Reason or The Freeman. This article is the usual attack on straw libertarians, so I'm not going to address the whole thing here. Fortunately the author, someone called R.J. Eskow, probably a lit or comm major, offered eleven questions and I'm going to answer them.

Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of "spontaneous order"—and if not, why not?

The answer to most of these is "sometimes", so I'll address them one by one.

Unions

Sometimes, When there is no state regulation forcing employers to negotiate with them, when workers are free to decide themselves whether or not to join, when they aren't bribing politicians for their benefit, when they aren't using force against people, when they aren't vandalizing property, when they aren't using mob action to physically impede people who are just going about their business, then they are an example of spontaneous order.

It's not that hard.

Political Parties

They are when the state recognizes them and singles them out for special benefits/regulations

social movements like Occupy

The name itself gives it a way. They are physically placing themselves in spaces that belong to others against the owners wishes.

It's the force thing again. Are you beginning to understand?

Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Of course. In a free economy production is recognized by allowing the producers to keep or sell what they produce and by allowing them to pay for the assistance they may need in producing. Everyone places different values on all the goods produced and consequently the value of the work used to produce them. The way to aggregate this is through prices in a free market.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Duh, as long as they aren't using force, themselves or through agents.

Is our libertarian willing to admit that a “free market” needs regulation?

Too nebulous to answer. Laws against mislabeling products, sure. Laws preventing someone from offering a shuttle service because the taxi companies and bus driver unions own the politicians, fuck no.

Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what’s wrong with governments that regulate.

Yes, it is the best way to protect liberty. Clearly, it's not perfect. The problem with regulation is that it is preventing otherwise free individuals form making mutually beneficial exchanges. It also drives the misapplication of resources by distorting the information contained in prices.

Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?

Of course. When the government sets itself up as a monopoly, or takes your money to provide its option, leaving you to use it or pay double, you have little choice.

Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?

This is a huge point of contention among Libertarians, and I haven't resolved my position yet.

Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?

That is just an empty assertion. Camping stores opperate in a market place, competing for customers, inventory and facilities. I don't camp. What happens in that market is a null factor in my life and I am a null factor in their business. That is a market. Whether or not I vote, the state is still negating a large portion of my working life by taking a portion of my wages/profits against my will.

Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms?

Not nearly to the same degree as big government. Avoiding large corperations is difficult. Avoiding the government is impossible. Then, when the corporations buy the government, we are really fucked.

Does he think that Rand was off the mark on this one, or does he agree that historical figures like King and Gandhi were “parasites”?

You realize the King and Gandhi were fighting government coercion, don't you? Although not perfectly. I'm sure that if they lived to achieve power themselves they would have introduced a different batch of state control into peoples lives.

If you believe in the free market, why weren’t you willing to accept as final the judgment against libertarianism rendered decades ago in the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas?

Hey dumbfuck, "free marketplace of ideas" is a metaphor. Whose final judgment? You and your yuppy friends, who spend more time polishing your rhetorical skills than actually learning anything.

I'm livid.  I'm not even going to edit this one beyond eliminating the squiggly red lines.