In other news, left-libertarians will find Ben ONeills new piece on Chomsky a bit frustrating. It attacks Chomsky at a point where he certainly needs attacking, and rightly complains that Chomskys quarrels with private business entities do not rest on any allegation of the initiation of force either by these corporations or on their behalf; moreover, ONeill even cites Kolko re the dependence of corporate power on government intervention. So far, so good.
Nevertheless, the Kolko references notwithstanding, the tone of ONeills piece still conveys the impression that existing corporate structures, with all their Dilbertian irrationality and obnoxious hierarchy, are mostly the result of the free market and so to be defended, thus leaving the reader with the old choice between vulgar liberalism (treating various nasty features of the prevailing corporatism as though they constituted an objection to the free market) and vulgar libertarianism (treating the case for the free market as though it justified various nasty features of the prevailing corporatism). In fact, given the impact of statist intervention on corporate structure, Chomskys characterisation of corporations as private tyrannies can be vindicated on purely libertarian grounds as Kevin Carson does in his new book Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective. (And of course its also worth saying that even forms of power that dont involve or depend on coercion can still be harmful and worth fighting noncoercively, of course.)
While were on this topic I havent forgotten my promise to respond to some of the later criticisms in the Conflation Debate; life has just been über-hectic lately.