It's better described as the property problem of liberalism. To the extent that liberalism treats property rights as anything other than a social contrivance, to be modified as necessary to meet social needs, it has no defence against Musk and other plutocrats.
The fact that (propertarian) libertarians are seen as legitimate participants in liberal debates while socialists generally are not, reflects the same problem.
Fascinating. So, to crudely summarise, the notion of individual agency is predicated on that agency not being unduly hindered, and if a force in the market is unduly hindering individual agency then it is legitimate to interfere with said force of the market. So then, what is the libertarian or liberal priority - the right of personal freedom (or the condition not for your right to freedom to be unduly hindered) or market freedom (or the right of the market not to be interfered with)? Individual rights or market rights?
It's better described as the property problem of liberalism. To the extent that liberalism treats property rights as anything other than a social contrivance, to be modified as necessary to meet social needs, it has no defence against Musk and other plutocrats.
The fact that (propertarian) libertarians are seen as legitimate participants in liberal debates while socialists generally are not, reflects the same problem.
Fascinating. So, to crudely summarise, the notion of individual agency is predicated on that agency not being unduly hindered, and if a force in the market is unduly hindering individual agency then it is legitimate to interfere with said force of the market. So then, what is the libertarian or liberal priority - the right of personal freedom (or the condition not for your right to freedom to be unduly hindered) or market freedom (or the right of the market not to be interfered with)? Individual rights or market rights?