Is Libertarianism possible with a Police State?

godspal

Libertarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I am a libertarian at heart. I believe all liberties should be returned to the people as to allow for the natural social evolution of man. However we have come to a stage in society where we take our liberties for granted or are too self-absorbed to take notice of them being removed. For example: The greatest single liberty that was removed from the British Isles societies in the last twenty years was the right for people to gather without notice which was installed to prevent raves. The majority of people did not bat an eye-lid when this was imposed, while a minority rioted, and other minorities herald it as a necessary step in the prevention of a drug culture.
In this society slowly but surely our rights are been taken away, the right to privacy with the amount of cameras that are being put up, the freedom of choice by the constant nanny state, and finally the right to die (which is the most sickening display of government control ever imposed.)
However I have been perplexed for some time now, it is not until something is completely and utterly removed do the majority of people truly appreciate somethings, and rights are certainly one of those. Therefore for libertarianism to work would we need a Police State or would people be able to appreciate their rights if they were educated about their brilliance?

nyarlothothep

No, I don't think a police state would be necessary.

The thing with Raves is that yes they were mostly harmless, although it highlights something significant about unfettered libertarianism imo...see if they were disturbing certain communities then yes they shouldn't have been allowed to hold raves there. If there were no disturbances or negative effects then I wouldn't see the problem with it. But one has to keep in mind the potential negative effects of their actions. Tbh the crackdown on raves was unnecessary imo but perhaps the tories were trying to win favour with their key demographic, pursuing the moral agenda...

It is sad to see a surveillance society on the rise in Britain among other countries.Imo its the result of different factors, the corporations which want to increase profits, reactions to anti social behaviour with deterrents ie you are being watched (which I think gives one a certain sense of safety, for example I am re-assured by the fact that there are cctv cameras on trains), and an effort to control people.

For example the internet is something of a wild west frontier, and there have been concerted efforts by certain telecomms providers (if I recall correctly) to introduce tiered services which would result in all but the biggest most commercial websites being excluded (look up net neutrality). So the financial side of things would nicely tie in with political motivations to cut off access to information which they wouldn't like to get out. I mean most major media outlets don't report on certain things so the internet is alternative news source and this would represent a threat to the ensured stability of the status quo.



The best way imo is to institute a libertarian culture is to hack away at institutions of control and foster a responsible and free society. Its a cultural thing imo more than an social engineering problem. Atm most people are disconnected from politics and so are inadvertently supporting the nanny state idea which is a terrible one. If people were allowed to have direct control over the means of governance, in an egalitarian sense in all aspects of life, I think libertarianism would flourish.

godspal

However the problem with chipping away at the structures of current authorities would mean we would need some sort of collective conscience, that people would be in the general consensus that the institutes and structures they are stripping away are bad, and the nothingness that would prevail would be good. How would instill this belief?
This is why I have been somewhat mystified by the problem of the police state... As i have found that people can only see things as being bad in their extremity.

ChocolateSauce

Economically, yes, socially, no.

synd

Libertarianism to the extent that it can be achieved isn't compatible with an unaccountable state body like the police ''as they exist''. Im a realist and realize that a libertarian society would require a civil defense force of some description, I would advocate a community organization based on participatory democracy and rotational organization.

Granted the state institutions are anti-libertarian, however capitalism remains the predominant barrier to libertarian progression. The state is at least subject to a degree of popular control - however private capitalist institutions are accountable to nobody. In fact, the most tyrannical actions of the state are invariably caused by the influence of private institutions, who to a large extent control the state.

Take raves as a case in point - Raves became a huge threat to powerful financial interest groups, nightclubs and pubs throughout the UK where in serious trouble in the early 90s. Revenue was being lost on billion £gains - for instance an est £5.5 billion was lost last year on smuggled alchoal and cigs in 2008.

People going out every week meeting in abandoned warehouses ect - drinking free water, consuming £3 pills and cheap cans. Donations for the DJ usually - no entrance charges. Money was being lost in all corners so a propaganda war was waged under the veil of morality. The gov employed (scientists) proclaiming MDMA/E to be a killer ect (when in reality paracetamol and birth control pills kill more people every year).

Look - the state is a pain in the hole, however assaults on social liberty usually originate in the private sector - The state is merely the tool. Take imperialism as another good example, invading armies are state apparatus however most invasions are economically motivated, you have oil companies lobbying, vested trade interests ect - the military industrial complex

silverharp

synd wrote: »

Granted the state institutions are anti-libertarian, however capitalism remains the predominant barrier to libertarian progression. The state is at least subject to a degree of popular control - however private capitalist institutions are accountable to nobody. In fact, the most tyrannical actions of the state are invariably caused by the influence of private institutions, who to a large extent control the state.

A libertarian position isnt hampered by capitalism and I havnt come across that as a concern from libertarain supporters. there would be codes of behaviour, the libertarian position is just it doesnt need to be centralised in state controlled law or courts etc.?
The worst combination seems to be where corporate and state interests become aligned. The whole credit crises has been a huge "I told you so!" from a libertarian perspective, mainly due to this.

synd

silverharp wrote: »

A libertarian position isnt hampered by capitalism and I havnt come across that as a concern from libertarain supporters. there would be codes of behaviour, the libertarian position is just it doesnt need to be centralised in state controlled law or courts etc.?
The worst combination seems to be where corporate and state interests become aligned. The whole credit crises has been a huge "I told you so!" from a libertarian perspective, mainly due to this.

Libertarianism is compatible with capitalism ? Maybe in Murray Rothbards imagination but not in the real world - libertarian capitalism is an oxymoron.

Private institutions are subject to no popular decree and are vastly more authoritarian, capitalism = plutocracy. Private capital ensures that those without property are by degrees subjugated to those with control over the means of life via requirement of use - hardly libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

Due to competetition wealth becomes concentrated causing vested private interests employ external institution to maintain competitive advantage or monopoly - state and capitalist institutions have evolved as complimentary entities.:cool:

Offalycool

Robert Nozick has tried to reconcile Libertarianism with Capitalism, claiming there would have to be a redistribution of wealth in order for capital to be implemented with justice. He fails to outline a credible way for this to happen and conveniently ignores that unborn children would be excluded from this great purge of inequality.

I foresee a libertarian society rapidly reducing in cultural diversity overtime as no public institution would provide foundation for liberty beyond capital. Obviously in a libertarian system if your lifestyle and beliefs do not coincide with what is profitable in any given time, you must renounce your beliefs and adopt a more profitable philosophy.

Naturally, some people would benefit from a variety of circumstances, leading to monopoly (monopolies happen naturally, if I have more, you have less. If you have less, your power declines, I dominate you). When this happens, people will gravitate to the powerful entities in society in order to survive, as if they were the government . Sure enough, the rich would protect their interest and conspire to become the government (Police State), and we are back where we started,which is not a good thing considering it took hundreds of years to acquire “liberty” in all its guises.

Society can not be readily divided into public and private, countries form the basis of markets, they exist because of markets, their infrastructure and social programs are devised over time to best exploit markets in a fair and productive way by reducing the social upheaval that wreak markets through modestly redistributing the benefits to all. Its all well and good running about thinking you are free to do and think what you like with disregard for the less fortunate, but without the support of liberal redistribution, all people would be forced to adopt whatever measures necessary to survive. Survival is a poor type of liberty, but it is the price many wretched people would pay to believe they are free.

silverharp

synd wrote: »

Due to competetition wealth becomes concentrated causing vested private interests employ external institution to maintain competitive advantage or monopoly - state and capitalist institutions have evolved as complimentary entities.:cool:

That is the danger that the Libertarian sees, hence the minimum gov. If gov. controls the money supply , regulation and panders to the masses this corrupts the capitlastic system. Said Capitilist will see more reward in gaming the system then competing in it.

Maybe humanity is incapable of learning from history and will just go though cycle after cycle which ends is some for of tyranny regardless of any well meaning system that is put in place, if so then thats cool too, once you can spot it ahead of time and have the ability to get out of dodge:pac:

silverharp

Offalycool wrote: »

I foresee a libertarian society rapidly reducing in cultural diversity overtime as no public institution would provide foundation for liberty beyond capital. Obviously in a libertarian system if your lifestyle and beliefs do not coincide with what is profitable in any given time, you must renounce your beliefs and adopt a more profitable philosophy.

Maybe the Irish language is an example here? Do you prop it up with state money and put a gun to peoples heads that they must learn it. I've no idea if it would survive a Libertarian system , if people wanted it , it would survive?

Offalycool wrote: »

Naturally, some people would benefit from a variety of circumstances, leading to monopoly (monopolies happen naturally, if I have more, you have less. If you have less, your power declines, I dominate you). When this happens, people will gravitate to the powerful entities in society in order to survive, as if they were the government . Sure enough, the rich would protect their interest and conspire to become the government (Police State), and we are back where we started,which is not a good thing considering it took hundreds of years to acquire “liberty” in all its guises.

What evidence is there for this? If a company is the best in its industry it will have a strong market position, if it isnt propped up by the state, how can it maintian an artifical position. Life isnt a Zero sum game only a closed system survives on the basis of their has to be a loser for every winner

Offalycool wrote: »

Society can not be readily divided into public and private, countries form the basis of markets, they exist because of markets, their infrastructure and social programs are devised over time to best exploit markets in a fair and productive way by reducing the social upheaval that wreak markets through modestly redistributing the benefits to all. Its all well and good running about thinking you are free to do and think what you like with disregard for the less fortunate, but without the support of liberal redistribution, all people would be forced to adopt whatever measures necessary to survive. Survival is a poor type of liberty, but it is the price many wretched people would pay to believe they are free.

so is the misery of living uner a welfare system and the risks that a welfare mentality causes the entire system. Look at the global system at the moment, is it not a poster child for tyring to manage markets?

synd

What evidence is there for this? If a company is the best in its industry it will have a strong market position, if it isnt propped up by the state, how can it maintian an artifical position. Life isnt a Zero sum game only a closed system survives on the basis of their has to be a loser for every winner

If a company maintains strong market position it will attempt to maintain competetitive advantage by either utilizing external institution or creating institution for that end. If you want evidence just look at economic history.

so is the misery of living uner a welfare system and the risks that a welfare mentality causes the entire system. Look at the global system at the moment, is it not a poster child for tyring to manage markets?

Capitalism requires regulation in order to prevent collapse - the market isn't some self equilibriating entity - (despite that crap spewed by Milton Fridmon and friends) , things like (perfect competition) simpilly dont exist in the real world.

Reality check - rationalism in economics is dying, neo-liberalism is dying (hurra)

silverharp

synd wrote: »

Capitalism requires regulation in order to prevent collapse - the market isn't some self equilibriating entity - (despite that crap spewed by Milton Fridmon and friends) , things like (perfect competition) simpilly dont exist in the real world.

Reality check - rationalism in economics is dying, neo-liberalism is dying (hurra)

Who wants perfect equilibrium? only a corpse has perfect equilibrium and only a cancer cell works on continuous growth until it kills the host.

The whole notion of preventing collapse is a strawman argument. The very notion that some plateau of development and wealth can be achieved is a pipe dream.

Hopefully at the end of the of the mess that the global economy has gotten itself into , it will be the statist approach of trying to manage markets , will be shown to be bankrupt (hurra)

CPT. SURF

Offalycool wrote: »

Society can not be readily divided into public and private, countries form the basis of markets, they exist because of markets, their infrastructure and social programs are devised over time to best exploit markets in a fair and productive way by reducing the social upheaval that wreak markets through modestly redistributing the benefits to all. Its all well and good running about thinking you are free to do and think what you like with disregard for the less fortunate, but without the support of liberal redistribution, all people would be forced to adopt whatever measures necessary to survive. Survival is a poor type of liberty, but it is the price many wretched people would pay to believe they are free.

Your paragraph above is really excellent and it mirrors my thoughts on the subject. I think that the political philosophies of the extreme right and left fall down for the same reason: human selfishness. In a completely libertarian society the more advantaged will undermine the liberty and opportunity of the disadvantaged due to the lack of checks on their own selfishness. Those at the top of a communist society live in luxury while they enforce the most meager of existences upon their 'brothers'.

silverharp

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Those at the top of a communist society live in luxury while they enforce the most meager of existences upon their 'brothers'.

You have shown why communism never works, but still dont see why the same result happens under a free market. Take a company like Microsoft, is a tech engineer so badly off on 70K per year because Bill Gates is worth
billions. A modern knowledge economy wouldnt work if skilled people were on minimum wage.
The checks and balances are the ability of skilled workers to market their services for the highest reward.

nyarlothothep

The soviet union was not communist

CPT. SURF

silverharp wrote: »

You have shown why communism never works, but still dont see why the same result happens under a free market.

silverharp

CPT. SURF wrote: »

DadaKopf

Ha, libertarianism happens because of a free state. Yes, a contradiction in terms. Historically, the 'free market' (not identitical with the philosophy of libertarianism but actual-existing [aborted] libertarianism) was and continues to imposed through the use of force, usually by the state. Read the classic, 'The Great Transformation' by Karl Polanyi.

Polanyi, in his analysis, goes further to say that the destructive forces of liberal capitalism (within a liberal framework; indeed, liberal ideology and capitalism emerged together) require regulation, intervention and coercion to keep its core elements in place: the profit principle and private property ownership.

Just as the 'free market' was first achieved through actions such as Britain's 'Opium War' with China, more recent history also shows that free markets are the product of force. The ideas deployed to justify this use of force are liberalism/libertarianism and capitalism. Iraq is, of course, an extreme real-world example of this logic at play. Also see how civil liberties are being quashed in rich countries in anticipation of a major backlash against powerful interest groups. One thing I heard, for example, is that returned Iraq vets are being transferred to the Home Guard (the US domestic military) which is growing in anticipation of the backlash.

So yes, libertarianism (and its economic sister, neoliberal economics) as it currently exists is a utopian dream used to justify the abuse of power, and dependent on the use of force to control popular discontent through direct use of force but also to engineer consent through tactics backed up with the eventual use of force by the state.

Offalycool

Firstly, my apologies for not responding sooner to your response.

silverharp wrote: »

Maybe the Irish language is an example here? Do you prop it up with state money and put a gun to peoples heads that they must learn it. I've no idea if it would survive a Libertarian system , if people wanted it , it would survive?

What evidence is there for this? If a company is the best in its industry it will have a strong market position, if it isnt propped up by the state, how can it maintian an artifical position. Life isnt a Zero sum game only a closed system survives on the basis of their has to be a loser for every winner

so is the misery of living uner a welfare system and the risks that a welfare mentality causes the entire system. Look at the global system at the moment, is it not a poster child for tyring to manage markets?

As far as I'm aware, nobody puts a gun to peoples head's in Irish classrooms, but it's been a while since I was forced to go to school. I was thinking more along the lines that an emphasis on personal property to protect liberty is somewhat counter-intuitive... far from being a certainty in the defence of individual liberty; it can lead to a persons liberty being undermined in some circumstances.

Perhaps it is no harm to have some tax money spent on cultural programs, most of the arts are supported directly or indirectly by states all over the world. Without this state motive, I fail to see the incentive to private institutions to support any art the strives beyond advertisements in our increasingly consumerist society. As for the Irish language, ultimately, if nobody wants to speak Irish, there is not much the state can do in the long run anyway.

Without going into all the issues in this small chapter in political philosophy, which has been extensively debated by both libertarian philosophers and liberal philosopher; I don't pretend to have extensive knowledge of every argument made; but of that which I have studied, this argument seems to reveal one major flaw in right-wing libertarian thought.

To borrow Will Kymlicka's argument...

Many Libertarians defend the philosophy on the grounds of self ownership. They may argue that in order to ensure self ownership against the state, property ownership must be a fundamental right. Market exchange involves individuals powers and consequently they own whatever is gained in the act of this power. Nobody has the right to take property from the individual because the individual own themselves and in turn own their property as an extension of themselves.

But.. Market exchange involve more than the exchange of self owned power. If I build a house, The raw materials that were used in its construction were there before I built it, indeed they may have existed before humanity came about. Libertarians may retort that the raw materials were purchased legitimately and are therefore the property of said individual. But what constitutes legitimate purchase of natural materials? Surly there must be a legitimate sale, this must be fundamental to self respecting libertarians?

However nobody can legitimately claim to own natural resources because we cant know if the original owner acquired the property legitimately. Indeed it is absurd to suppose somebody legitimately purchased natural resources, we cant know who owned most of them in the “beginning” because they clearly must have been taken by force at some point. The first person who took possession of the land did so illegitimately, and therefore does not have the right to sell the land to anybody. This highlights the problem with claiming liberty through property.

Either the use of force made the initial acquisition illegitimate, in which case the current owners claim to the property is illegitimate, leaving no grounds to object if a government confiscate the wealth to redistribute it...
Or... the initial force used did not render the acquisition illegitimate and, again, the government can justify the use of force to confiscate the wealth to redistribute it.

Its a lose lose situation.

If we suppose the natural resources can be put to better use if it is private property, thereby justifying the initial illegitimate acquisition by supposing everybody is better off in the long run.. we are still left with a problem. Some will initially acquire more property than others, forcing property-less people to work for them under dictated terms. Measuring 'better off' in purely monetary terms ignores the sacrifices a poor person will have to make, such as suppressing personal views on environmental practices in order to earn a living.

All in all, fundamental rights to have a fair go at life are more preferable to me than fundamental property rights, but I do share some concern for an oppressive state, and would not advocate Marxist views.


All in all the modern libertarian ideal is a bit of a fantasy (and it is that,- an attempt to philosophically justify why the world is heading the way it is), it will never be implemented in western societies fully (and perhaps any society). The reasons are numerous, but some of the big reasons why I think this is because powerful individuals have no desire to create a system where their monopolies could be threatened. Furthermore, the millions of state workers throughout the world are not going to come on board with libertarians, libertarians will never convince them. But most of all, most people don't mind contributing the society, they want public infrastructure, education, healthcare, and support for the naturally disadvantaged, this is not going to change. Yes, society dropped the financial ball (wouldn't be the first time), but nobody is steering the bus anyway, we are all in this together, united we stand, divided we fall.

Will Kymlicka, Contempary Political Philosophy: an introduction. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990.)

silverharp

DadaKopf wrote: »

Just as the 'free market' was first achieved through actions such as Britain's 'Opium War' with China, more recent history also shows that free markets are the product of force. The ideas deployed to justify this use of force are liberalism/libertarianism and capitalism. Iraq is, of course, an extreme real-world example of this logic at play. Also see how civil liberties are being quashed in rich countries in anticipation of a major backlash against powerful interest groups. One thing I heard, for example, is that returned Iraq vets are being transferred to the Home Guard (the US domestic military) which is growing in anticipation of the backlash.

I dont know what this has to do with Libertarian position, A libertarian constitution wouldnt give these powers to the state in the first place, what you have outlined there just shows that big gov. and big business fosters policies tending towards fascism which from my perspective is abhorrent.
It doesnt matter if A Libertarian position is Utopian , the point is that if it is the best model to deliver maximum personal freedom and innovation then the Libertarian can see where problems will crop up the further a society move away from this ideal.

synd

silverharp wrote: »

Who wants perfect equilibrium? only a corpse has perfect equilibrium and only a cancer cell works on continuous growth until it kills the host.

The whole notion of preventing collapse is a strawman argument. The very notion that some plateau of development and wealth can be achieved is a pipe dream.

Hopefully at the end of the of the mess that the global economy has gotten itself into , it will be the statist approach of trying to manage markets , will be shown to be bankrupt (hurra)

The current crisis was caused by sub-prime lending, speculation ect, agents within a (real) economy dont have perfect info ect - which is (exactly) why regulation is required to prevent collapse. Rationalism within economics is dead - the textbook model has nothing to do with reality.

Its 2008, economics has moved on - you should really stop watching outdated milton friedmon vids. Neo Liberal theory has been exposed as bull**** - (although Im aware the cult still lives on).

DadaKopf

A libertarian constitution wouldnt give these powers to the state in the first place

We live in a world where things already exist. This was also the case when libertarian theories emerged 200 years ago. The history of the creation of 'actual existing liberalism' (to bastardise a phrase used to describe communism) is the history of the use of the state to impose a certain political and economic ideology around the world.

So there is the theory, and the practice. The theory is just that - an idea in someone's head, in a book, or in public discourse. Practice is the application of that theory to the already-existing world. And, sadly, that application has a dark past. The imposition of liberalism (and libertarianism) has involved the use of force, usually by states (certainly post-French Revolution), to impose certain regimes.

Yes, other bad things happened at the hands of other ideologies, but the above fact should no longer be concealed. It's fanciful idealism to ignore this.

silverharp

synd wrote: »

The current crisis was caused by sub-prime lending, speculation ect, agents within a (real) economy dont have perfect info ect - which is (exactly) why regulation is required to prevent collapse. Rationalism within economics is dead - the textbook model has nothing to do with reality.

Its 2008, economics has moved on - you should really stop watching outdated milton friedmon vids. Neo Liberal theory has been exposed as bull**** - (although Im aware the cult still lives on).

You have described the effects but you havnt mentioned the cause, idiotic Fed policy. The Fed clearly sent out confusing market signals through its policies and actions , no wonder other market participants went asleep at the wheel. Throw in a gov. determined to run up big deficits and you cant blame most others from getting it wrong. If you want to accept that we live in world goverened by idiots then absolutely socialise everything so nobody has to face the consequences of anything.

DadaKoph wrote: »

So there is the theory, and the practice. The theory is just that - an idea in someone's head, in a book, or in public discourse. Practice is the application of that theory to the already-existing world. And, sadly, that application has a dark past. The imposition of liberalism (and libertarianism) has involved the use of force, usually by states (certainly post-French Revolution), to impose certain regimes.

I cant relate what you have said to the present , who is going to impose what by what force? looking at the US , they have clearly gone down a culdesac where their big gov. big buisness model has failed their average citizen using their taxes and borrowing to fund a military they dont need, regulating heathcare and other industires to the point that millions of people cant affort to access the services and robbing their citizens savings through inflation and higher taxes. All the Libertanian is saying is told you so and you better role back or else the economy will be socialised to death.

silverharp

Offalycool wrote: »

All in all the modern libertarian ideal is a bit of a fantasy (and it is that,- an attempt to philosophically justify why the world is heading the way it is),

What is wrong with that if it correctly points out the fundamental flaws in the current lage gov structures.

In your article I didnt see any criticisms of EU or US restrictions of trade with Africa etc. Maybe third world countries would have a fighting chance of developing internal wealth if they could engage in free trade.

Offalycool

Sorry.. I can see how that sentence would suggest I think the world is going to eventually become more Libertarian! I meant to indicate that we are privatising nature ever more rapidly.. cutting deeper and deeper into the rain forests for example. I don't think the gov. will shrink significantly in the foreseeable future.

What Africa has had to endure as a result of Europe/US is morally inexcusable, forever. But to suppose African rights would be more secure if tide fundamentally with property rights, leaves the African vulnerable in just the same way as outlined in my previous post. Rights should be connected to the self, and be subject to nothing that can be taken away from the self. US/EU supremacy is finite in the end anyway, the African just has to wait.. our decadent lifestyles make us weak and are unsustainable.

silverharp

Offalycool wrote: »

Sorry.. I can see how that sentence would suggest I think the world is going to eventually become more Libertarian! I meant to indicate that we are privatising nature ever more rapidly.. cutting deeper and deeper into the rain forests for example. I don't think the gov. will shrink significantly in the foreseeable future.

I might have misread it as most Libertarians think the world is going socialist

Here is what one Libertarian wroe recently

"Laissez faire (doctrine that opposes government intervention) is dead in the current political discussion. We will not hear this again until Western Civilization collapses. The idea of smaller government and the dream of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and others, has expired and vanished into the night suffering what Horace called - Pallida Moors - the pale death. Any solution that somehow excludes government, will never be even attempted. What Marx failed to realize was there was never a dramatic battle between the classes. It has always been a battle between Government and the people. No matter what happens, Government will always blame the private sector and never admit mistakes. Out of self-interest, it will hunt down those in the private sector to sacrifice in the public square. "

Offalycool

silverharp wrote: »

I might have misread it as most Libertarians think the world is going socialist

I don't think the world will go completely socialist, Most people (I believe) agree that a balance between private and public is the way to go. The innovation and flexibility of the private sector is greatly valued in western society. I just think there is room in this world for a public sector also.

synd

What Marx failed to realize was there was never a dramatic battle between the classes. It has always been a battle between Government and the people. No matter what happens, Government will always blame the private sector and never admit mistakes. Out of self-interest, it will hunt down those in the private sector to sacrifice in the public square. ''

Class struggle manifests itself most clearly within Gov - opposing sections within society duel to have their interests implemented by Gov. Libertarian claptrap delibertly overlooks the fact that state instiution and private interest have evolved as mutually dependant entities. Right wing theory only condems gov when it acts in the interest of labor.

While more ''consistent'' libertarians condem all gov intervention they engage in contradiction.