An instinctual repulsion to collectivist entities coercing behaviour in society is not of and by itself a bad thing. The problem with many modern American libertarians is that they arrogantly refuse to apply the concept equally to all of society's collectives, ignoring, and often even deifying the fictional business constructs of collectivism; and their elevation in our society to the status of "person". Also, libertarians should not be opposed to collectives, per se; the opposition is to acts which are forced upon others by them. Liberty implies a freedom of association with others, but not a right to enslave them. To castrate the state, while leaving the corporation intact, would be to ensure not a future of liberty, but of neofeudalism:
There is no doubt in my mind that corporations, being legal constructs of the State, would need to surrender their faux personhood in a libertarian-influenced world and submit themselves to the full array of market forces without protection from the state. "Church and State" aside, I think Commerce and State should also have a wall of seperation.:-)
As to collectives, let me once again point out the distinction I have made in the past between collectivism as a
foundational political philosophy and collectives
in the sense of a kibbutz.
Political collectivism is a foundational philosophy that subordinates the Rights of the individual to the
will and
interests of the state -- or, if you prefer, to the
benefit of society -- if indeed the concept of individual Rights is even recognised in such a system.
This is quite different from the kibbutz type collective or an association of like-minded people who voluntarilly join and are free to voluntarilly leave at will. More power to them. As you say, that is what individiual liberty is all about. This is also a point I have made in the past, but apparently it just does not stick in the minds of some who continue to conflate
political collectivism with voluntary social, business, and charitable groups and organizations.
