a question on libertarianism

[Citizen James]

It's its own philosophy.  Actually, I figure there's 3-4 different groups of people who call themselves libertarians.

There's the purist libertarians, who I have yet to decipher, but are pretty much dedicated to the concept of personal liberty first and formost.  To quote the movie demolition man:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then there's the Reform libertarians who are more moderate and actually have some ideas which might not be so bad.  They tend to be pragmatic, along with a relatively positive view of human nature.  (yes, adults are responsible enough to be trusted to run their own lives).

Thirdly there are the anarchocapitalists.  They don't really care that much about personal freedom, but are adamite about corporations having rights and being as above the law as possible.  In reallity they are closer to Feregi than Libertarian, but they try and label themselves libertarian anyway.

Then there's the folks who pretty much lack a political philosophy beyond being irrationally opinionated, though the only freedom they tend to advocate is their right to make a public fool of themselves.

[Citizen James]

Thirdly there are the anarchocapitalists.  They don't really care that much about personal freedom, but are adamite about corporations having rights and being as above the law as possible.  In reallity they are closer to Feregi than Libertarian, but they try and label themselves libertarian anyway.

No we aren't. You are possibly the most intellectually dishonest person in this forum, if not whom I have ever met. I'm yet to find an anarcho-capitalist who believes corporations should even exist. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

If you want a strawman, I suggest you browse the Trogladyte entry

I do understand what anarchocapitialsism is, and like it's distant cousin communism it has a lot of high-sounding ideals which it claims will come to pass through some sort of magical process.  Both have a tendency to put a lot of power into the hands of very few individuals, and both claim to help the 'masses' while being vague on the details of how.  Real capitalists, such as the oft miscited Adam Smith, opposed monopolies, olgiarchies, and other anti-competitive practices which benefit most from excessive deregulation.

Trade and specialization of labor are both good things.  Ideally in commerce, I get what I want, you get what you want, and we both walk away happy.  I do one thing well, you do something else well, we are both more productive than if if we were both jacks of all trades.

Economics is not magic.  The forces at work can be studied.  Like all studies involving human behavior there are variations and a great deal of potential complexity - especially when dealing with mass behaviors, but in the end it's another form of applied sociology.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist (and to be honest, rocket science really isn't that complex - expecially compared to things like geopolitcal dynamics, but I digress..) to look at history - company towns, railroad barrons, and the whole dang industrial revolution - to realize that there does have to be a check against those who will abuse power to the detriment of society, which can also bring a backlash should too many members of society take matters into their own hands; which can feed a cycle which is brutish, at times violent, inefficient, and over the long term not all that profitable for the company as a whole.

But enough elucidation.  I'm sure your answer will be typically short and trite.  At least brush up on your insults - perhaps you could accuse me of being a profundus  maximus.  I'm certainly verbose enough.   I can even throw in a bit of latin for fun

Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum
Pecunia in arbotis non crescit
Me oportet propter praeceptum te nocere