Government intervention is required to give everyone a chance to be free. The "freedom" capitalists love to talk about is only for a minority of the population. Leaving a society to their own devices leads to chasms and elites that only benefit a few people at the top.
So yes, more government intervention is more freedom net total.
We wouldn't need intervention if the human nature was altruistic. But alas, it's the opposite.
Pretty much this. I reject right-libertarianism (the kind most Westerners think of when they hear the term "libertarian" these days, as in the Ayn Rand/Murray Rothbard/Libertarian Party/Cato Institute schools of thought) for the same reasons I reject Marxism. It doesn't mesh well with human nature. They claim to believe in "maximising freedom," but in practice their ideology is little more than an implicit support of "every man for himself/dog eat dog/I got mine, Jack, so screw you" social Darwinism. They use a corruption of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" concept, claiming that, left to its own devices, the market will always self-correct, when history clearly shows that it frequently does not self-correct, and has to be corrected by government intervention, but they continue to adhere to the idea of laissez faire. John K. Galbraith once said "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness," but that can be just as easily applied to right-libertarians and anyone else with similar economic viewpoints. Whether or not they are just finding ways to rationalize their "selfishness is a virtue, altruism is a vice" ideals to their base, or they honestly believe their own bullshit, is irrelevant. Humans are quite frequently anything but "rational actors," and many a businessman, both large and small, has, out of pure greed and a lack of scruples, sought to cut as many corners and fuck over as many people as they think they can get away with just to boost their profits. The mere existence of human greed and evil lays low the idea that unregulated markets can ever truly function for the benefit of everyone.
"Anarchism" (not in the political sense but in the "anything-goes/no rules" sense) in the marketplace is just as foolish as "anarchism" in society. There will always need to be rules and various checks and balances in place, and some central authority to create and enforce those laws, i.e., a government. Otherwise what's to keep some private entity from running roughshod over other private citizens just to make a buck? Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Private power can be just as authoritarian and insidious as any government, as the lessons of the Gilded Age ought to teach us. In the absence of any real rules or regulations, wealthy business interests have shown that they're more than willing to abuse workers, subjecting them to long hours in unsafe conditions with little pay and no benefits, and hiring mercenaries to beat or even murder them if they go on strike; to despoil the environment if it's cost-effective to do so; and to corrupt the government by being able to literally buy politicians. If they thought they could get away with it and make a nickel by doing so, businesses would pay American workers third-world wages and dump toxic waste in the water supply, and they've already succeeded in giving themselves more and more power and influence over the electoral process. I don't care if it's some Standard Oil-like monopoly or the government that's trampling my rights. The end result is the same. There needs to be accountability, and there needs to be rules in place to prevent abuses. Big business has no more of a right to pollute the air I breathe than some random stranger has a right to break in my house and steal my stuff.
Cool, I got this. I consider myself a Left-Rothbardian, individualist anarchist, strongly pro-market, neutral on the question of property norms. I imagine a polylegal arbitration system where people with different ideas on property resolve their disputes through mutually agreed arbirtrators. I am strongly against state-privilege, especially towards hierarchial institutions.
Interesting quiz. I got this:
I was expecting the economic axis to be closer to the middle. I like having a market economy, and I don't even have a problem with making money or even capitalism in and of itself, and worker/consumer ownership of the means of production isn't a priority of mine, though I do believe strongly in the need for regulations, progressive taxation, safety net programs, and a national universal health care system.