Roderick T Long’s article entitled, “Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now” explores the link between the free market and the rise of big business and corporations. Specifically, Long questions the motives of libertarian free market advocates of simultaneously legitimizing plutocratic corporations. He begins by pointing out that a completely free market and big business are at odds, utilizing many examples of government intervention propping up corporations and their businesses. Long addresses the question of who or what is responsible for the conflation of free market ideals and the interests of big business and corporations. To conclude his essay Long points to the colloquial use of the word capitalism as a source of confusion.
…show more content…
Long rightly points out that the crux of the issue is a conflation of terms or definitions misused by libertarians. Long calls for continually pointing out the inverse relationship between a true free market and the total power of corporations and big business. I argue that clearly defining these terms when speaking about them would have avoided this question of libertarians implicitly advocating for corporate plutocracy all together. Furthermore, Longs analysis of the parties responsible for the conflation of the free market advocacy and big business advocacy lend credence to his argument. Long argues that three parties are responsible for conflating corporate plutocracy with the free market. The politically left, right, and libertarian are deemed responsible by the author. However, the author is quick to point out that responsible might be too strong of a word. This is because unintentional confusions are the cause and not deliberate actions intended to confuse or conflate. In essence, the problem is due to legitimate attitudes or beliefs within the party that have lead to simultaneous support of the opposing ideals of the free market and corporate plutocracy. …show more content…
He does well to point out that some of these groups, particularly the right, disguise anti-free market attitudes and beliefs with language that on the surface is pro free market. However, one could leverage the claim that Long fails to present sufficient evidence to convince his audience that the politically right actually agrees with the definitions that Long claims they support. For example, the author claims the right uses the term privatization to mean granting of a monopolistic contract for a service or job. He does not mention, or give examples of situations where this has occurred or speak of anytime where the right has agreed with this definition. He simply says the right took the term and twisted it into the unfavorable definition given. This leaves the reader to seek to either seek out additional information elsewhere, accept the claim as given, or reject the claim for lack of evidence. A similar argument can be made for Long 's claim that the right misuse the word deregulation. Long should provide examples of the right misusing these words to thoroughly convince the reader of his
Long rightly points out that the crux of the issue is a conflation of terms or definitions misused by libertarians. Long calls for continually pointing out the inverse relationship between a true free market and the total power of corporations and big business. I argue that clearly defining these terms when speaking about them would have avoided this question of libertarians implicitly advocating for corporate plutocracy all together. Furthermore, Longs analysis of the parties responsible for the conflation of the free market advocacy and big business advocacy lend credence to his argument. Long argues that three parties are responsible for conflating corporate plutocracy with the free market. The politically left, right, and libertarian are deemed responsible by the author. However, the author is quick to point out that responsible might be too strong of a word. This is because unintentional confusions are the cause and not deliberate actions intended to confuse or conflate. In essence, the problem is due to legitimate attitudes or beliefs within the party that have lead to simultaneous support of the opposing ideals of the free market and corporate plutocracy. …show more content…
He does well to point out that some of these groups, particularly the right, disguise anti-free market attitudes and beliefs with language that on the surface is pro free market. However, one could leverage the claim that Long fails to present sufficient evidence to convince his audience that the politically right actually agrees with the definitions that Long claims they support. For example, the author claims the right uses the term privatization to mean granting of a monopolistic contract for a service or job. He does not mention, or give examples of situations where this has occurred or speak of anytime where the right has agreed with this definition. He simply says the right took the term and twisted it into the unfavorable definition given. This leaves the reader to seek to either seek out additional information elsewhere, accept the claim as given, or reject the claim for lack of evidence. A similar argument can be made for Long 's claim that the right misuse the word deregulation. Long should provide examples of the right misusing these words to thoroughly convince the reader of his