Justin, not to get into a political debate, but this points to the basic problem I always had with Libertarianism, I'll leave Objectivism aside since I don't know much about it, beyond Bill as the reification of John Galt. I'm in agreement with Libertarianism on the civil liberties side, as I always say I got a much bigger problem with drug laws and the war on some drugs than I do with antitrust laws. But the big thing with Libertarians always seems to come down to what my side calls "propertarianism", i.e. people with money call the shots, and you get exactly the rights and privileges you can pay for. The coercive power of a company in Microsoft's position seems part and parcel of the whole philosophy. Microsoft tells Compaq, put the sacred icon where we say, or you're outa business, yes, I'd call that coercion, but others would say they're just wisely excercising their all-important intellectual property rights. Always seemed to me, pure lazzez faire Capitalism can devolve to feudalism quickly enough, historically that seems to be what happened with company towns in the robber baron age. But, I'm agnostic on the capitalist religion too, which makes me a commie I guess. The nuns that taught me history weren't revealed as commies till the Reagan era, when our CIA-trained allies in Central America started killing them, but it was OK because they were commies anyway.
It's largely a matter of politics, of course. My jaundiced, Critical Legal Studies-style view of the government is that property and capital have plenty enough say politically already. My naive high school civics idealism says that if Libertarians and Objectivists want a government closer to their ideals, the political process is as open to them as it is to everyone else, in principle. In practice, given the role of money in politics these days, it's more open to them than to most.
Oops, off the soapbox, back to the newswatch. DOJ is supposed to file something today, aren't they?
Cheers, Dan. |
