Some years back the website Salon, a known progressive-left opinion site, had a writer by the name of RJ Eskow who did an article questioning some Libertarian stances, and this Libertarian is more than happy to answer his (and any other progressive socialists out there) questions, or more directly debunk Eskow's rather crude assertions. Firstly, this is the link to Eskow's original article that I'm referring to- [salon.com]

Would like to point out that independent fact checkers do not rate Salon very high in factual reporting, and here's the link to that source- [mediabiasfactcheck.com]

If you are looking for non-biased information on Libertarian philosophy, I'd recommend the site Libertarianism.org, which is rated higher on factual reporting from independent fact checkers, and here is the link to that source- [mediabiasfactcheck.com]

Also, the following post is geared towards fellow Americans, as the topic largely pertains to American politics, and it is a somewhat lengthy read.

That aside, let's get to Eskow's first question, and all of Eskow's questions will be in quotation marks. "Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of spontaneous order?" No, rather they are examples of meticulous organization. Political parties are constantly organizing and planning with their respective candidates, and Elections are certainly an organized event. A worker's union is an organization of individuals and could hardly be considered spontaneous, and same is true with social justice movements. Organizations/entities such as Black Lives Matter, the Proud Boys, or ANTIFA did not just materialize over night, it took considerable planning and organizing first in order to build them up into the organizations/entities they are today.

"Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?" Yes and no, and for the most part in Libertarian philosophy there is no actual conflict of interest on that much. If an individual believes it necessary to organize a worker's union, then said individual should be free to do so, just as long as no others are forced or coerced into joining such a union. Yes, for the large corporations like WalMart production is the result of many forces, and wealth is built-up through such as well, but what about small businesses in which only a few family members work at? Eskow left that one out. Regarding small businesses, of which there are many in the US, production/profits are not necessarily the result of multiple forces, and in such cases the individual small business owners are responsible for accumulating their own wealth. For example, my maternal grandparents owned a small sandwich shop (which presently is a pizzeria, not owned by the family anymore though) many decades ago, and it was just my grandparents and one of their kids (who happened to be my mother) who ran the shop. Even though it was just the three of them, in a few short years they were able to accumulate a considerable amount of wealth, and became the most successful sandwich shop in town sending any local competitors packing. Point is, not all situations require many forces in order for production to take place, there are plenty of small business owners who accumulated considerable wealth minus the need to hire employees. On a side note, since you're inclined to believe that Libertarians are mostly selfish cads who almost always put their own needs first, here's a quick fact about my past. In my early 20s I had worked a side gig as an erotic male performer, and made some decent tips alot of which I gave to charities benefitting breast cancer research and victims of domestic abuse. Am I selfish for doing such, as technically I did capitalize on my looks a bit there in order to generate some funds in which to give to charity? You see, capitalism is not always a bad or selfish thing, as one could certainly seek to capitalize for a totally selfless cause, which is precisely what I did there.

"Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?" Not necessarily. Market forces push prices up when supply declines and demand rises, and drive them down when supply grows or demand contracts. There need not be any exclusive connection between workers who are bargaining for their services, with the concept of supply and demand when it comes to consumer goods, as collective bargaining and consumer goods are two very different things. As for the victims of illegal deeds at the hands of large corporations, there are multiple laws on the books criminalizing such acts and so far those laws have failed to protect consumers as ruthless individuals find creative ways to circumvent the laws. The progressive would argue that de-regulation leads to more victims, but the Libertarian would argue that laws designed to curb such practices already exist and have done nothing to stop the greedy slobs who are determined to take advantage of others.

"Is our libertarian willing to admit that a “free market” needs regulation?" No, as there already are many regulations in place meant to protect the consumers, and yet every day across the country said laws are broken without incident and many individuals find themselves victims to various scams and frauds. What would rationally make Eskow think that more regulations would solve the problem? On the flip side, I'd like to throw the same question right back at him, in the form of... do you think certain individual choices that could result in some controversial actions require regulations? Like say, abortion procedures, which could conceivably be dangerous to women under certain circumstances. I'm willing to bet I'd get a resounding no to that question, and rightly so by the way as currently abortion procedures are heavily regulated and such regulations have not stopped determined women who are willing to sidestep the laws in favor of looking out for her own welfare. Laws and regulations mean absolutely nothing to those who will do whatever it is they want to do, which is why there is such a thing as a criminal, but I digress, that's a whole other dilemma for the pro bigger Government crowd.

"Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what’s wrong with governments that regulate." As things currently stand, democracy by definition is little more than a pipe dream, believed only by those who believe that Government/the politicians would never lie to or sell them out for either personal gain or for convenience. To those of you out there who support abortion rights for women, how's that there democracy working out for you, eh? I mean... it's not like women are rapidly losing their bodily autonomy rights due to a crooked democracy, right? Guess I'm just imagining that abortion rights recently have come under serious attack. The two-political Party monopoly in the US has and continues to habitually violate our individual rights and rob us blind through excess taxes all due to the fact that those in positions of power and authority for some reason cannot adhere to a fiscally responsible budget, which in turn is driving up the national debt. And no, democracy should not be replaced by rule of the wealthy elite, it should be replaced on a voluntary basis where we all arrive to a consensus minus a select few individuals (aka, politicians and Government authorities) supposedly chosen to make decisions for everyone. As for Eskow's rant about Peter Thiel, that's pretty much an admission that big Government has and continues to aid and abet ruthless individuals who seek to take advantage of those who possess lesser wealth, which is hardly a benevolent thing for the average working class American. Now, wouldn't you think that if Government was truly setup to help and serve the citizens, that sort of thing would be virtually non-existent? Please note my restraint on how these politicians, both Democrat and Republican, are getting richer at your expense off of your tax dollars. It's socialism for the rich... your taxes keep going up while needless Government spending increases, consumer protection laws are failing because such is a joke to begin with, and all for what exactly? So scuzbags like Nancy Pelosi can flaunt $13 pints of ice cream while the average middle class working American languished under a Covid lockdown? Don't believe me? Still think politicians like Pelosi are a saint and not some worthless degenerate, I humbly suggest you read this- [heavy.com]

"Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?" No, and what wealth (sources) exactly are we talking about? The US Dollar holds the value it currently has due to demand for it, thus the USD only has value because a majority of the people believe it holds some sort of value, but take away the demand (faith in its overall value) and what do we have left? Surely a dilemma the Government would have no simplistic solution for. The USD's value is also largely based on the overall health of the economy, and when the economy is lagging people lose faith in just how much value the USD holds. Another possible factor to consider is psychology, people are being psychologically conditioned to believe the USD holds a certain value, simply because the Government says so. Additionally, does Eskow honestly believe all fiat currencies are exclusively created by the Federal Government, and that there could be no exceptions to that? If so, how does one then explain cryptocurrencies, namely Bitcoin, which was invented by a private entity and not a Governing body? Presently, there are hundreds of cryptocurrencies out there, and contrary to some popular beliefs and that of which I personally could attest to, Bitcoin is a very real currency that can easily be exchanged for other currencies including the USD on various crypto exchanges. I know that to be true, as since 2016 when I first started to invest in Bitcoin and in the time since I've been able to turn some nice profits. It's also worth pointing out that no Government on the face of this Earth has the power to fully regulate or control all crypto exchanges, as there are too many potential outlets in which to circumvent any regulations a governing body may attempt to pass. So in short, fiat currencies are not exclusively created by the Federal Government, and modern technology has and continues to pave way for privately created currencies.

"Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?" Yes, I can take care of myself, and let me ask you this... exactly just how effective have the Government's intellectual property rights laws been? There's virtually zero cases of copyright infringement due to the Government's laws, right? Oh that's right... there have been and continue to be thousands of copyright infringement cases a year, and doesn't look like that's going to improve anytime soon. So the real question that should be asked here is, do we really need Government protection of that sort knowing full well the Government's regulations have let down thousands of people it claimed it could protect with its laws? Also, in a voluntary Libertarian society, I wonder just how much in demand intellectual property rights would even be, knowing that one individual could invent something useful and either share it with the rest of the community in order to benefit everyone or exchange said invention for a service or product from another? If it's mutually agreed upon, then it could work, and if the general idea is to exchange a service or consumer goods, I wonder just how important copyright laws would be then? Just wondering that part out loud, and it bears some more consideration. That musing aside, suffice to say, the Government would not absolutely be necessary to provide for such protections knowing full well the Government's regulations on the matter don't exactly have a desirable track record for dependability.

"Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?" Yes, I do as a matter of fact. Now... are you aware that as the current system stands, democracy as we know it is a rigged marketplace, rigged in favor of the political elites? People think they can choose the ideal candidate for the job, when in reality no such thing exists and the politicians only keep getting richer and richer at the expense of the taxpayers. Both Democrat and Republican politicians have been selling the average working class American up the river for decades now, and it's only getting worse by the day. I've already briefly mentioned a few examples above, ranging from certain political elites who flaunt their materialism during times when average Americans were losing their jobs and forced to live on a tighter budget, to political elites who are gradually eroding away certain individual rights in an effort to limit the choices people could make. So... is the "Democratic marketplace" a genuinely flawless utopia? It sure doesn't sound like it to me. While some corporate corruption (aka crony capitalism, which runs afoul of Libertarian principles) does play a role in all that, a big reason why the democratic process is so flawed is also due in part to failure on Government's part, as big Government has yet to find a semi-permanent solution to said corruption in society. Also, no Libertarian that I know of is celebrating money for money's sake (the supposed corrupting influence of money), and we strive to work together to find longterm solutions to the problems in society we all face. Big corporations aren't acceptable either per se, and the Government enabled such corporations to begin with via Government handouts/bailouts. The Government created that monster, as without aid from the Government I somehow doubt said huge corporations would have had the means to become big and powerful in the first place. Big corporations have been conducting assaults on American's individual liberties, Eskow claimed. Uh no, last time I checked some of the most integral individual rights like bodily autonomy and Second Amendment rights have been undermined by governing powers at the Federal/State/and local levels. If anything, some of those mega institutions have gone along for the ride violating American's individual rights due to pressure from political correctness and shaming campaigns carried-out by the governing powers that be, after the Government itself made the first move to undermine our individual rights.

"Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms? Yes, and do you realize that once Government gives any sort of aid to mega corporations, in turn the Government itself becomes a dangerous institution by being an enabler of such? Enablers are just as guilty as the perpetrators are. When big Government is allowed to go unchecked, that opens the door to all sorts of abuses of power and the citizens losing their civil rights, which is precisely what's been going on for some time now. Additionally, mega corporations are hardly the only greedy slobs out there, and over the last fifty or so years now worker unions (both public and private, but the latter of the two may be the worst) have become rather greedy themselves. Some of these union bosses remind me of mafia dons, and those jerks have committed numerous crimes from embezzlement to filing false reports to keeping false records to extortionate picketing to deprivation of rights by means of violence, to name a few. So if you want to criticize large companies for their unscrupulous ways of treating their employees at times, make sure you also take the time to condemn unions too, as unions these days are far removed from being totally pro employee. Here are a few good sources that documented the less than shining side to unions- [unionfacts.com]
[unionfacts.com]

"Ayn Rand was an adamant opponent of good works, writing that “The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves.” That raises another test for our libertarian: 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”?" What makes you think that all Libertarians agree with all of Rand's views? There's debate as to whether or not Rand was truly Libertarian in the sense or flat out hardline conservative. That said, her own views are not necessarily the views of every other Libertarian out there. If anything, Rand was more objectivist than outright Libertarian, as she believed that libertarianism doesn't actually share in the political values of objectivism, and likewise the Libertarians weren't exactly thrilled with Rand's objectivism. While Atlas Shrugged was an interesting piece, personally speaking I did not like Rand as an individual, and I also question some of her views. Don't conflate an objectivist with a Libertarian.

"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?" Eskow should speak for himself, as that surely sounds like strictly his opinion on the matter, and not the reality of the situation. I've got news for you dude... libertarianism is alive and well in the US whether you like it or not, and there are far more of us out there than you realize. The Libertarian Party in the US is the third largest political Party, and steadily increasing membership as more Americans get totally fed up with the two-Party Government monopoly. We won't stay silent either, not until you realize your democracy is an elaborate sham that is playing you for a fool, and turning you against your fellow Americans all the while stripping you of your natural-born rights. Neither the far-left progressives or hardline conservatives are actively fighting for your rights, which based on mere observations alone should at this point be self-evident. Of course, in order to arrive at that conclusion, one would first have to set aside any personal biases they may have and actually think for themselves minus any mainstream media influences.

Now, I have my own bonus question for progressives like Eskow. Since you favor democracy and bigger Government so much, how do you rationally (keyword there being rationally) justify being in favor of the current system while simultaneously claiming that the very same system is also racist and working against minority populations and that of which is beyond any redemption? It surely can't be both of those, so which is it? Upon reviewing and genuinely considering my responses to your questions, maybe just maybe you will come to the realization that the libertarians are not your adversary, and that like you we too are concerned about the issues we all face in society, it's just that we may take a different path than you do in reaching a viable solution to said problems is all, and diversity is always a good thing right? That said, I can only hope you arrive to that realization before it becomes too late to do anything about the widespread corruption among the political elites, as with each passing day our individual rights keep getting eroded away. You may hate us, but we don't hate you, and should the day ever come that you get to witness your precious democracy fall to its knees due to unchecked corruption, you just might need our help in putting things back together again.

Your friend,
The Renegade Libertarian