How would libertarianism lead to corporate tyranny?
By libertarianism you mean a liaise fair free market system. Whether this will lead to corporate tyranny or not depends on whether you subscribe to the great man theory or not. Here are a couple of quick questions will tell if one does: did Steve Jobs invent the I-pad? did Eli Manning win Super Bowl XLVI? or was it Apple Computers and the New York Giants? People who subscribe to the great man theory will say that Eli is a better quarterback than his brother because he has won on more Super Bowls. The great man theory is that events happen because of one great person. So Lincoln freed the slaves, Alexander the Great conquered Persia. This idea that there is a small group of great men leads them to downgrade the rest of society. So no one else could have accomplished what Lincoln or Alexander the Great did. Likewise even if we had a free market no could compete with the Sam Walton's and Bill Gate's of the world. Without government a small group of great men, and the corporations they run would take over. The problem is that The Beatles were not great just because of John Lennon. When they broke up they all continued to release platinum albums. If the market place were to become the libertarian utopia you describe Vice Presidents at Walmart and Microsoft, who are often as competent as the CEO, would be able to leave and start competing companies.
Would Libertarians oppose redistribution for historical injustices?
Absolutely and unequivocally. One of the most central tenants of Libertarianism is free market economics, the figurative opposite of redistribution of wealth socialism.See this article that addresses both sides in a libertarian critique of a case for reparations.The Case Against Reparations for SlaveryTo be clear, slavery and the Jim Crow laws that propagated segregation and continued discrimination are abhorrent and without defence. The problem with the premise of reparations now is that it's not right to ask the country to pay today for a wrong they didn't commit, to compensate people who weren't wronged (at least not as slaves which is the only thing that reparations were ever intended to rectify).Further, people continue to ‘forget’ That America's slavery was neither carried out exclusively by whites, nor by Americans. Yes, there were black slave owners, a lot of them ('9 Facts About Slavery' That Aren't Entirely True - especially helpful since it addresses fallacies, truths and half-truths). The slave trade was also known as the triangle of trade (Triangular trade - Wikipedia ) and involved many nations, least of all America. Yes, LEAST OF ALL. Of the more than 10 million enslaved Africans to eventually reach the Western Hemisphere, just 388,747—less than 4 percent of the total—came to North America (This Haunting Animation Maps the Journeys of 15,790 Slave Ships in Two Minutes ). Of course the trans-Atlantic trade makes little difference to the millions of people born as slaves in America.It goes without saying that slavery is the single worst part of American history and a national embarrassment. While many do not support reparations, I hope we continue to discuss it. We should never be allowed to forget slavery or America's part in it. It is indefensible.
Can anyone name me one libertarian country?
Somalia
What is the Libertarian view of President Andrew Jackson?
I recently applied for an internship with a strongly libertarian organization. I myself am a hard core libertarian. one of my essay questions was to name 3 books, or people that i find inspirational and/or impacted my way of thinking. 2 of my choices Im confident will be looked well upon. although i was somewhat hesitant about my 3rd. i chose my favorite president, Andrew Jackson. I know there is a lot of controversy surrounding him, but i chose him because he was the 1 who abolished the 2nd national bank of the united states (i consider this to be the single greatest accomplishment of any president, ever) and he was also the first president to use the veto against congress and veto bills he didnt like, thus slowing the growth of government. I figured it would be okay since this will be reviewed by "End the Fed" fanatics, and champions of limited government. but he may not be looked so highly upon by the libertarians, even though I like him, because he was a slave owner, and he signed the Indian Removal Act. what do you guys think? was putting jackson down a bad move?