I doubt there is a publication that intentionally misrepresents libertarianism more than Salon. Then again, this isn't a new cultural notion. Pretty much every social work and public administration text I pick up reduces libertarianism to self-interest and solipsism ("to think, people believe in that!"). Anyway, inasmuch as this viewpoint is common to those on the left, it's important to genuinely engage some of these concerns. Moreover, it is important to provide a more nuanced view of libertarianism because often times its proponents do the most damage to its reputation.
In that spirit, I will answer your 11 questions, Salon.
Just to start with a quibble, Rand is popular in libertarian circles (some or most of us started with her). But, she hated libertarianism and thought we were all libertines and hippies (I'm both!). She wrote essays on it. To say her odious philosophy forms the basis of our political philosophy makes no sense and does a great disservice to actual important political philosophers from this school that are influential today. I'd look more towards James Buchanan of the public choice school and the political philosophy of David Schmidtz and Gerry Gaus.
Anyway, onto the questions.
Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of “spontaneous order”—and if not, why not?
Good question! Spontaneous order is a foundational concept of libertarian and classical liberal social theory. Your definition, though it is drawn from Cato, is more a definition of purposive human action, not spontaneous order-- which can be better defined as an order based the product of human action, but not human design. I prefer Charles Johnson's (2013) definition of spontaneous orders as "characterizing social structures as either: 1) Consensual rather than coercive; 2) Polycentric rather than directive; or 3) Emergent rather than consciously designed." He applies this example to rape culture and patriarchy, which are the product of many men's uncoordinated oppressive attitudes and violent actions towards women.
Elections are a poor example of spontaneous order because they are consciously designed and directive, though they are consensual as no one forces me to vote. Political parties, too, are consciously designed, directive, and coercive. Unions may be either spontaneous or not, in my view (though certainly some libertarians would differ on this point). To the extent that unionism is an organic, emergent process that arises from the ground-up and does not coerce people into membership--then they are certainly spontaneous (and indeed beneficial). Certainly, the early labor movement was a great example of this, and many early libertarians were quite vocally pro-labor. But, when labor unions become larger, they form an organized interest group that can hurt workers (broadly defined) more than they help. They are not spontaneous orders, but instead, are another cog in the central planning machine. Finally, social movements like Occupy are mixed examples of spontaneous order, as they are consensual and polycentric, but are consciously designed. This is not a detriment, as almost all social movements require conscious design and action. It is probably your best example.
Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?
Well, sure. There is not one definition of production in libertarian economic or political thought. However, you can think of libertarian economics as looking largely at the forces of production; whereas, modern neo-classical economics looks at the forces of consumption. I would suggest reading Leonard Reed's classic work I, Pencil for a wonderful thought experiment on how the market rewards each force in the production cycle. Here's a video, if you like.
Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?
Hell yes! I don't really get your wording here, but the lead up to the question makes it pretty clear what you're asking. Labor negotiations are an important part of a market economy. I'm a left-libertarian, so you're going to get a biased answer here, but my libertarianism sees nothing wrong with collective bargaining. Employers are free to fire everyone, hire unskilled workers, and train them to replace the unionized workers. Employees are free to organize, flex their collective muscle, and get better pay and benefits.
What you're hitting on here is valid, though, and my above discussion elides that fact. Many if not most libertarians do not like unions. It is frustrating to me too that libertarianism is often an apologia for the status quo of market relations and takes a generally pro-business slant. It is difficult for me to support large unions because they are coercive, in that they often demand membership for employment, and form a very large interest group that dominates legislation and political action--similar to big business. I'm not against this interest group in particular, but all of them, their entire ilk.
Is our libertarian willing to admit that a “free market” needs regulation?
I would like to offer a semantic play on the word regulation here, but that wouldn't really help things much. Libertarians generally believe that the regulation of the market is best left to informal and emergent rules than formal rules. These include the consequences of profit and loss for businesses--which in the present day are generally private profits and socialized losses, but I digress--as well as public opinion, arbitration, tort and contract law, among others.
Your examples point towards the folly of deregulation, and your examples are somewhat correct. However, the problem for libertarians is the system of formal, government regulation itself. When the deregulation is written by businesses to enhance their interests, carving out privileges at the expense of entrepreneurs and consumers, that's certainly worthy of opprobrium. Libertarians take this a step further and argue in kind that regulations written by businesses to enhance their interests and carve out state-granted privilege at the expense of others is also wrong. We are generally the ones shouting that Mattel has written the new child safety standards for toys in order to exclude competition from small business. Or that the financial sector wrote Dodd-Frank. Or that big pharma and the insruance industry wrote the PPACA. The game of government regulation makes the benefits so high for interest groups that they pour money into lobbying for rules that will benefit them financially. It works, and despite the altruistic nature of a few politicians, will always work.
Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what’s wrong with governments that regulate.
I am so glad you asked! Democracy is a bit of a sacred cow, and libertarianism (aside from brands of socialism) is really the only school of thought to vivisect and look inside. Alongside the majority rule problems you learned about in your civics class in high school, a vote is frankly worth almost nothing. The odds of your vote mattering are less than being hit by a lightning bolt during a shark attack. Voters are largely ignorant of most political issues and display systemic biases that politicians exploit. Your choices are between two parties that come with a slate of proposals (that very often overlap) which you must accept as a package. Your representatives are not saints, but real flesh and blood people, who have their own interests to take care of, like having enough money to get reelected. Which leads us to the conclusion that the voters don't really matter in the end, it is the small, well-organized interests that win out in the political process. Democracy, in our view, is best understood as a bludgeon against tyranny, as voting is an unwieldy, blunt instrument that in rare but important cases can check the power of the government.
Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn't exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?
Absolutely. I live off the government currently. Thanks, Virginians!
Seriously, though, we live in the world we live in. Many libertarians do not believe in copyrights or ascribe to a very minimalist version of copyright (as in your Peter Thiel example). Yes, the internet came from government research. There are lots of great things that come from government research. I don't think you demonstrated that these things wouldn't exist without government. Nor could you! It's a counterfactual that can't be proven. But I think there is good reason to believe that these inventions were the result of human ingenuity, not government. I don't see how the government-ness of the funding and structure makes these inventions better or more likely. And I am deeply skeptical of how government funding of research implicates and biases scientific research--as I saw in my previous field of research, substance abuse. Not that what comes out isn't useful to some degree. Just that we should think about the government funding structure more.
Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?
Well, I doubt Peter Thiel would. It's not in his interest to do so. Since I haven't done anything useful, and I will never see a red cent out of this blog, I'm perfectly comfortable rejecting government protection for my intellectual property. And since I'm dirt poor, I'm pretty comfortable with its rejecting government protection of others' intellectual property, too. I would love to see the Mickey Mouse Curve die off.
Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?
Democracy, loosely defined in your context as government, is indeed a marketplace. It is a marketplace rigged in favor of entrenched interests at the expense of us all. That is what libertarian political economy talks about. Government is not, as you say, a spontaneous order. It is, in fact, the diametric opposite of spontaneous order. It is coercive, directive, and consciously designed.
Another definition of democracy, the free exchange of ideas, certainly fits what you're talking about more. That is not to be confused with our present government, however.
Why isn't it important to avoid the creation of monopolies, duopolies and syndicates that interfere with the free market’s ability to function?
I would argue it is more important to understand how a market should combat the creation of monopolies and protected business interests, rather than trying to work out a system that avoids them altogether. It is in the interests of business to increase profits, so the tendency towards monopoly and syndicate are natural. Just as natural, however, are the incentives for a member of that syndicate to undercut the monopoly price to gain more market share. These natural forces make monopolistic arrangements somewhat untenable and unstable, save for one force--government intervention. I doubt the American Medical Association would, in a free market for medical services, continue to be the monopoly provider of educational and licensing services. But government privilege makes it illegal to offer competing services, and we suffer higher prices, less competition, and doctor shortages for it. Less direct measures that subsidize private monopolistic interest often and make up a significant portion of libertarian political theory.
Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms?
This is a tough question and cuts to the heart of your earlier point about libertarianism apologizing for the status quo. For me, libertarians do not do a good job of criticizing how large corporations work in the private sphere of dominating a coercing people, especially workers. They do a great job of highlighting where big business and big government intersect, but when you take government out of the picture, many if not most libertarians find nothing to criticize. If, like me, you find this to be unsatisfactory, you should look at some of the works of the left-libertarians.
I would offer, however, that libertarianism, free market economics, and classical liberalism all arose as a reaction and criticism of the mercantilism present in most Western countries. It was a political order that protected entrenched, monied interests at the expense of small businesses, workers, and individuals. To this degree, libertarianism does recognize that large corporations are a threat to freedom. We wish to lessen their influence in government.
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”?
No, and it's a horrible thought. There is a strand of conservative anti-poverty, anti-charity in the liberty movement, and that is awful to me and other libertarians. As you look at other historical figures, there are many who are part of the classical liberal school. Libertarianism is also influential in the founding of many civil rights and civil liberties organizations. Rand's ideas are best associated with Objectivism, rather than libertarianism. It is an understandable straw-man argument, given her popularity. But, if you wish to understand a political philosophy, I would advise you to dig much much deeper.
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?
Because I wasn't alive? This question is idiotic, frankly. You can't on one point say that libertarian ideas are ascendant and then say that they were finally declared dead decades ago. Libertarianism and its ideas have enjoyed limited victories over the past few decades. These include deregulation of airlines and trucking, drug liberalization, increased private property rights in the courts, and academic movements of public choice theory and political philosophy.
There's a lot to be proud of in there. I hope you'll take a chance to look at it sometime. I'd be happy to guide you along or find you someone who can help better. I'm still learning, myself.
