One of the frustrating tendencies I saw with some regularity when I worked in the DC libertarian policy scene was a shift in thinking from defending free markets to just defending whatever big corporations do, or whatever structure they take. Or, if not defending, saying we as libertarians had no business judging what market actors do or how they use their power. But that's nonsense, in the same way it's nonsense to say we have no businesses critiquing the choices free individuals make.
One reason this was a dumb move is that it basically removed libertarians from a lot of the conversations people were having that led to calls for more government actions and intervention and thus less market freedom. People have concerns about the ways big corporations behave and the influence they wield, including in the political process. If free marketers just shrug, instead of participating and offering market solutions, they cede ground to those who prefer concentrating power in the state.
@arossp I most often see this pop up in Reason/Cato-aligned knee-jerk defense of resource extraction industries ("oez noez, the pipeline is blocked, think of the jobs") when there are serious libertarian reasons to oppose (aren't we happy that a bunch of people aren't about to get eminent-domained out of their land?)
@arossp knee-jerk anti-labor sentiment is the other obvious one. Was just grinding my teeth at this coverage today: https://reason.com/2022/11/22/a-possible-railroad-strike-during-the-holiday-season-would-risk-2-billion-per-day/
@arossp """It would obviously be preferable to see the two sides come to an agreement that does not require further intervention from the federal government. But there's no doubt that the unions are playing a dangerous game by putting a strike back on the timetable."""
Like, is a libertarian publication really siding with the feds over some people exercising their right to voluntary association?
@elfprince13 @arossp Take the BMWE, mentioned in Boehm’s blog post. Is the association totally voluntary or a closed shop? (I don’t know and I’m having trouble finding the info, so my “toot” is asking.)
@elfprince13 @arossp A comment on the Reason blog post I’ll quote because it brought up a possibly relevant point: “They (or more precisely, their predecessors) waived that right as part of their lobbying for preferential treatment under other laws. Apologies that I don’t remember exactly which laws but I do remember an article a couple years back (I think on the Volokh Conspiracy) that laid out the legislative history very nicely.” Wish it had more detail.
@arossp @mlaursen “the government overreached by doing x, now it must also overreach by doing Y to compensate” is certainly *an* argument, but it’s not a libertarian one.
Though if you find a Volokh Conspiracy article making that argument I’ll be both interested (and disappointed) to read it, as their legal analysis is usually quite good.
@elfprince13 @arossp Although I recognize the importance of general principles, more and more I find it hard to argue or discuss a specific real-world situation without knowing the details. 🙂