"We can agree that productive achievement is a good thing. However, it is inescapably true that the efficiency and financial power of huge corporations (e.g., WalMart) -- which many FR libertarians champion, and which are indeed a logical outcome of Rand's philosophy -- have also ushered in the "managerial political bureau" Chambers warned us about. (At this point people like Ron Perleman and Bernie Schwartz spring to mind....)"
I can't go into detail, but I would just like to point out a couple of things. 1. Many libertarians do not champion the current legal status of corporations which give them extra rights and powers with relation to individuals ... especially when they are proped up by corporate welfare. 2. Ayn Rand's idealizations never depicted a corporate polit' bureau which was efficacious. All of her successes were characterized by strong central figures and not political posers.
1. Many libertarians do not champion the current legal status of corporations which give them extra rights and powers with relation to individuals ... especially when they are propped up by corporate welfare. OTOH, under a libertarian system, what is to stop a corporation from doing what "[m]any libertarians do not champion"? If we go by Atlas Shrugged, the use of raw economic power to defeat competitors (e.g., WalMart vs. Mom&Pop) is presented as the highest good. (In reality, a free society is probably much better served by having a lot more business owners than a WalMart universe would permit.)
2. Ayn Rand's idealizations never depicted a corporate polit' bureau which was efficacious. All of her successes were characterized by strong central figures and not political posers.
That's one of Chambers' main points. Real life is full of strong and competent villains, and not a few of them start out as good guys.