Dems (and others on the left), do you prefer to "battle" Libertarians or Fundies

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Fundies are TERRIBLE!!! I kind of like the right kind of libertarian, who isn't just a paleo-con. Neo-cons are pretty bad, too.

[Emsworth]

I was first exposed to Charles Dickens by a made-for-TV adaptation of David Copperfield on PBS.  Without that, I might still not know who Mr. Micawber was.  I've seen some fairly incredible things on Masterpiece Theatre.  And all for free on the public airwaves, not on some premium HBO channel.

Free? Do you not pay taxes?

Privatized and deregulated like the power companies?  No more Enrons, please.

It is true that there have been a number of cases in which a private corporation violates the law, causing great harm to the public. But there is an even greater number of cases in which a corporation operates perfectly legally, greatly improving the general welfare in the process. Needless to say, only the former type of situation makes the headlines. One should not focus on the scandals while ignoring all of the good work companies have done.

More importantly, though, consider the alternative. One cannot pretend that corporations are corrupt while governments are simply paragons of virtue. In truth, the government is likely to be far more corrupt than any corporation, simply because of the nature and extent of its power.

Consider, furthermore, that while corporations can cause harm, governments can cause even more harm. To my knowledge, no corporation in recent memory has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people. Can you say the same about the government of the United States, guilty as it is of waging an utterly unjustified war in Iraq? Can you say the same about other governments across the world?

Any ideology whose definition of "freedom," undermines social cohesion, involves the further atomization of society, and advocates a lack of interest in collective action to benefit mankind, yes, is dangerous.

Libertarianism does not preclude collective action. In fact, if individuals want to act collectively to benefit mankind, a libertarian model would leave them perfectly free to do so.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

It is true that there have been a number of cases in which a private corporation violates the law, causing great harm to the public. But there is an even greater number of cases in which a corporation operates perfectly legally, greatly improving the general welfare in the process. Needless to say, only the former type of situation makes the headlines. One should not focus on the scandals while ignoring all of the good work companies have done.

More importantly, though, consider the alternative. One cannot pretend that corporations are corrupt while governments are simply paragons of virtue. In truth, the government is likely to be far more corrupt than any corporation, simply because of the nature and extent of its power.

Dubious Claim. Do you know the level of Tax evasion corporations commit everywhere (or are they fighting for freedom)? Btw, Emsworth name me three corporations you consider to be good.

Consider, furthermore, that while corporations can cause harm, governments can cause even more harm. To my knowledge, no corporation in recent memory has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people. Can you say the same about the government of the United States, guilty as it is of waging an utterly unjustified war in Iraq? Can you say the same about other governments across the world?

Not a good comparsion given the level of co-operation between Chevron, Halliburton & Co and the war effort. Though I guess that goes under cronyism.

Libertarianism does not preclude collective action. In fact, if individuals want to act collectively to benefit mankind, a libertarian model would leave them perfectly free to do so.

What if this "collective action" required as its idea giving power back to the state (on some level).

Mikado is right anyway, libertarians are promoting the idea, like conservatives, that there society is one which is both natural and orderly (and thus neo-ideological, as apparently only the government can be ideological), however in practice libertarianism would just give us jungle capitalism and neo-social darwinist approach to life. Soul destroying idea in practice. (I've often gotten across from Emsworth that he believes in the traditional liberal idea of the state, as a neutral arbiter of society's various interest groups, which he sees as bad as those interests are always likely to be against his idea of society. I wonder what is opinion on "natural monopolies" are and would should be done about public Transport. Because in America taking a private position basically means promoting the automobile and suburbization. Neutrality makes its own decisions.)

I also agree with the Mikado that libertarianism is possibly more dangerous than fundamentalism (at the present) because the former's humanist heritage and thus cultural respectibility and also how attaches itself to young "intellectuals". A position funnily enough taken up by forms of Trotskyism in Europe.

However that might change once the fundies start getting more sophisicated arguements.

[Emsworth]

Do you know the level of Tax evasion corporations commit everywhere (or are they fighting for freedom)?

If, by "tax evasion," you mean tax mitigation, then I do not see what the problem is. Everyone is entitled to arrange his affairs so that his taxes are as low as possible. If, by "tax evasion," you mean the crime of tax evasion, then I have not seen enough evidence to endorse your conclusion. Certainly, one does not regularly hear of corporations being prosecuted for tax evasion.

Btw, Emsworth name me three corporations you consider to be good.

I do not presume to evaluate the harms or benefits of any particular company; , in the absence of anything even approaching perfect information, I cannot possibly do so. But I am quite sure that the free market system as a whole is preferable to any alternative of which I am aware.
 

Not a good comparsion given the level of co-operation between Chevron, Halliburton & Co and the war effort. Though I guess that goes under cronyism.

I will suppose, for the sake of argument, that oil and other companies lobbied for the war. Isn't it very telling that the government is so willing to subordinate the public interest to the interests of a narrow class? The war in Iraq is just one example; protectionist policies, farm subsidies, and "corporate welfare" are others.

Speaking of corporate welfare, I would note that I am not a fan of corporations or businesses as such. I also strongly support the existence and the activites of labor unions, and would oppose state interference with strikes.

I wonder what is opinion on "natural monopolies" are and would should be done about public Transport.

I have no pressing objections to antitrust laws, or to the existence of public transport. These rather minor violations of liberty have, at the very least, plausible public policy justifications. But, strictly speaking, they are violations of liberty nevertheless.