“Anyone, in today’s world, certainly in today’s America, who believes that there’s more de-facto political power in government than there is in business, or even who believes axiomatically that everything conceivably negative that a business might do is enabled by government (this means you, left-styled libertarians), is someone who has taken sides with the most powerful tier of society, is someone who is speaking power to truth, is someone who is striking at the symbol, rather than the source, of authority.”

I think its up for grabs which entity has more power on any given day. Perhaps it depends on the situation. But you are right to challenge the assumption that government obviously has more power over society and that commerce would be rendered benign in a theoretical stateless environment. As I’ve said before, most people face more coercion from their employers than they ever will from cops, judges or politicians.

Like Marx, I tend to believe that states are an expression of the social/economic relations prevalent in a given society. My economic ideas sort of drift back and forth between mutualism and syndicalism, I suppose. I am not unconditionally anti-market, but I am skeptical as to whether markets would be appropriate for many aspects of life. For instance, I am very wary of markets for healthcare, housing, public safety and any number of public services. The need for basics like shelter and safety should not be contingent on how much you have in the bank (mutual or otherwise ; ) ).

But what about other aspects of our lives that are less crucial to survival? A corner restaurant or pub. A theater or something in the hospitality sector. If the essentials of life are free or at least cheap, would it really be a problem if some of these kinds of establishments engage in some market activity?

I’d be interested to know what you think. And thanks for your interesting and challenging posts on C4SS. As someone who has moved fairly recently libertarian socialist territory, I find your ideas educational.