Comment: Not a fan of Ayn Rand. At all.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: We don't need restrictions on (see in situ)

Not a fan of Ayn Rand. At all.

That's great if her philosophy works for you. I won't try to persuade you otherwise, but she frankly is one of the biggest turn offs to libertarianism that there is for me personally. Just getting that out of the way.

But setting that aside, just so you can tell me whether I am understanding your argument fully: Do you make any distinction between human citizens and corporate citizens? Is there any distinction to be made on the propriety of the state imposing restrictions on the liberty of corporations versus the state imposing restrictions on the liberty of human persons?

Because I think there's a difference. And while I am all about human liberty, I have a lot of concerns about giving too much liberty to corporate "persons" because I have so little recourse on my own as an individual to hold corporations accountable when they infringe on my God-given personal rights to life, liberty and property.

Frankly I am not understanding how through self-governance and with the absence of state intervention that I hold a company accountable if that company pollutes my land. Either I'm going to need the state's help in imposing regulations on that company preemptively, or I'm going to need the state's help to provide me with the courtroom where I can sue that company that polluted my land after the fact.

It's this sort of situation where the anti-regulations, anti-government argument leaves me in the progressive camp rather than the libertarian camp.