I started out writing a comment but realized that any explanation that was aimed at communication rather than venting was going to be much too long for a comment. I am taking the questions at face value referring only to the original article's other text when necessary to provide context for the answers. You should definitely read that article before this one.

::::::::

shut-down-government by KAZVorpal

This article is in response to "11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They are Hypocrites" by Richard Eskow published in Oped News on 9/12/2013,

I started out writing a comment to the article but realized that any explanation that was aimed at communication rather than venting was going to be much too long for a comment. I saw too many comments I considered to be too snippy on both sides. But before I get to the questions themselves let me explain what I am NOT going to do. Many of the questions were prefaced by material which included unsubstantiated accusations, ad hominum attacks and attempts to imply guilt by association. I am choosing to ignore all that and take the questions at face value referring only to the background commentary when necessary to provide context for the answers. You should definitely read that article before this one. I have spent the time to do this because I believe that it is a waste of time for progressives and libertarians to be throwing stones at each other when there are so many important things we agree on and should be fighting for together. Let's unite where we can and put off the rest until after we win those battles.

So our first hypocrisy test question is:

"Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of "spontaneous order" -- and if not, why not?"

Yes unions, political parties, and social movements are example of spontaneous order UNTIL someone tries to pass laws to control them. Libertarians support voluntary unionism and many were out there on the front lines of Occupy. Elections are a bit different as they have to be defined by law since they are part of government. This unfortunately also usually involves laws controlling political parties which are really just people of like mind trying to pool their efforts for greater effectiveness.

"Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?"

Of course. The real issue here is who gets to decide what those rewards should be. Libertarians support allowing market forces and voluntary negotiations to make that determination. Progressives seem to prefer getting their people into positions of power where they can dictate their preferred terms to everyone.

"Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?"

Yes, as long as the terms of those negotiations are set by the negotiating parties not a third party such as government. Public sector unions are a special case because politicians need union support to keep getting elected and are therefor more willing than a private employer might be to meet their demands. Unlike the owner of a business, there is no personal cost to a politician in agreeing to terms which will cost taxpayers more money, so long as the expected positive votes from union members are greater than negative ones from outraged taxpayers. Since the benefit to an individual union member is likely to be higher than the penalty levied on an individual taxpayer to pay for it it, there is usually not enough concentrated taxpayer outrage to offset the union pressure. This is why there do need to be some legal controls on public sector unions. Otherwise libertarians support voluntary unionism and oppose mandated unionism. We thus oppose right to work laws as well as ones that outlaw unionization.

"Is our libertarian willing to admit that a "free market" needs regulation?"

No, a true free market does not need EXTERNAL regulation. The article posits the banking industry as an example of why regulation is needed in a market but the banking industry is hardly an example of a free market. Rather it is perfect example of how special interests seek and gain control of the coercive power of government to bypass market forces.

"Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what's wrong with governments that regulate."

Libertarians do not believe in unconstrained democracy which is nothing more than mob rule, or as I like to put it -- two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Libertarians support the concept of democratic process where the rights of the minority are protected from the predation of the majority by limiting the power of the majority to do certain things .That is why we have a Constitution which in theory at least says what the limits on government power are supposed to be when it acts in the name of the majority. Libertarians are most certainly opposed to any laws which say that the majority can do anything it wants to.

"Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn't exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?"

I sense a tautology here. Since today the government sticks it's nose in just about everybody's business it's just about impossible for anyone to claim that their "wealth" isn't tainted by government intervention. Libertarians support the right of anyone to use their justly acquired wealth in any peaceful manner. Determining if someone's wealth is justly acquired is a separate issue and can be very difficult to ascertain sometimes.

"Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?"

Actually there are differences of opinion among libertarians on this one. Some say that such protections are necessary to encourage innovation. Other, including myself, tend to think that there is no philosophical justification for their existence. The compromise I guess would be to make any such protections extremely time limited so that the innovators can reap a reasonable profit on their innovation before others can jump in.

"Why isn't a democratically elected government the ultimate demonstration of "spontaneous order"?   Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?"

Libertarians do not believe that individuals can cede powers to government that they do not possess as individuals and therefore oppose any "spontaneous order" that attempts to do so. If I do not have the right to steal from you I can not authorize my government to steal from you. But this is exactly the way government works. Government should not be able to force you to contribute to something just because the majority thinks its a good idea. If I come to your door and ask you to contribute $10 to the local little league you clearly have a right to say no. If I point a gun at you while making the request it does not legitimate the demand. So why is it that it suddenly can become legitimate if I run down to the city council and get them to pass a $10 parcel tax to support the local little league? Now if you still refuse to fork over that $10 the government can use force to collect it. The key word here is "force". If force, or the threat of force, is required to accomplish a goal you do not have a free market.

"Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms?"

Only when they can gain control of the coercive power of government which is pretty much the situation today. In fact they are unlikely to become oppressively large without help from government. Without government collusion any business, large or small, survives by providing consumers with a product or service at a price the consumer is willing to pay. By colluding with government corporations today can prevent cheaper competition from entering the marketplace through high cost start up regulations. That is, by creating regulations that are a drop in the financial bucket of an existing large company but a major percentage of costs for a start-up. They can also use government to force taxpayers to pay costs that investors are unwilling to assume, usually with good reason. Remember Solyndra anyone? For libertarians the solution is to limit the power that is there to be captured not to get "the right people" in control of that power.

"Does he [our libertarian] think that Rand was off the mark on this one, or does he agree that historical figures like King and Gandhi were "parasites"?"

Well, I certainly don't think they were parasites, but more importantly I don't think Rand did either. Can you produce a direct quote where she accuses either of them of being "parasites"? Rand probably did have some negative things to say about both of them because they were religious leaders and Rand was a rather militant atheist but I seriously doubt she ever called them parasites. Rand used words in a very precise and consistent way but not always the conventional way which is why when she is quoted out of context it is easy to misinterpret what she is saying. Unfortunately trying explain what she really means by a parasite is too big a topic to get into here.

"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?"

I am not willing because I do not see that such a judgment has been rendered. I see two primary reasons for the failure of libertarian ideas to gain traction in the past. One is simply inadequate exposure. How many of you were exposed to libertarian philosophy or the works of economists favored by libertarians when you were in high school, or even as an undergraduate? I'm a boomer and I know that I wasn't. The other reason is simply that its easier to accomplish any goal by using force rather than voluntary cooperation and the easier path is always a temptation. If I want you to do something I have two options: I can try and persuade you to do it or I can point a gun at you and say "do it or else". Government is a gun. If you don't do what it wants it can deprive you of your property, your liberty or even your life if you fail to comply.

As to the current acceptance of libertarian ideas, aren't all these anti-libertarian articles popping up on OpedNews lately happening because libertarian ideas are gaining ground in the market place of ideas?

Authors Bio:

I have been an active member of the Libertarian Party for almost 50 years and have run for several offices in California as a Libertarian. I am a founding member of the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition which is working to advance RCV throughout CA.