Distinguishing meaningful from meaningless differences, signal from noise, is incredibly hard. Our brains do it well; math/cs researchers working on image reconstruction are limping behind. It’s adaptive to notice a meaningful difference in your observations (Careful, something rustled in that bush!) but to still be able to identify the familiar.

The thing that humans have that my data analysis algorithms don’t, though, is categories. We’re much more sensitive to differences in human faces and gestures. I think we’d notice the unusual faster in an interpersonal situation than in a deck of cards. It’s handy to have a name and a face and an affect associated to a new entity.

Which is why I’ve always thought it’s a problem that libertarians (and even more so, left-libertarians) lack an easily recognizable cultural mood. For better or for worse, Democrats and Republicans each have a stereotype, a culture. We don’t, so much. We don’t really have instantly recognizable fashions or music. There’s no “face.” Maybe the closest things are tech-geek culture and the Ron Paul phenomenon. But I think it’s important to have a distinctive culture in addition to — and maybe even before — getting the basic concepts out there.

I generally find myself in agreement with the post, however I doubt the following:

“4. A genuine policy of intervention on behalf of the weak, if liberals actually tried it, wouldn’t work either, since the nature of government power would automatically warp it toward the interests of the elite.”

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the efficiency a democracy has in achieving its _stated_ goals. Sure, I agree any party would strive for a neat balance between two resources: wealth (big business) and votes (popular support). But there’s no reason to jump to the conclusion that big business or the elite is the single variable in this equation, apart from being as catchy as a conspiracy theory.

Secondly, I don’t see the purpose of this thesis, as any libertarian would agree that government intervention (with its consequences) on behalf of the weak is not justified.

So if individualist principles is what we support (anarchy per se needn’t even be thrown directly into the discussion), why beat around the bush? Bringing up big business into the discussion and putting them into a category certainly doesn’t help clarify the position (i.e. “we’re against all intervention”).

I think it’s pretty clear that that is in fact what Roderick is saying.

There’s an optimum medium size of a company, and the reason companies get bigger then that is because of state protections.

I disagree with this. In voluntary market exchange, BOTH parties expect to benefit, otherwise, they would not trade. No one is “empowered” at the “expense” of anyone else.

It is true that in free competition, the unjust acquisition of power is eroded/eliminated, so in that regard, you could say “at the expense of the elite”, but only with an explanation.

Without the initiation of aggression, no one operates at “the expense” of anyone else. If someone becomes wealthy (“elite”) in a truly free market, it is only because they have succeeded in satisfying their customers, not because of “empowerment” at the “expense” of anyone.