(Return to main path)

But if state control of economic life is so important, aren't you, in some respects, agreeing with the Marxists?

Aren't you admitting that formal or legal freedom (to believe, to speak, to move, to marry, and so on) is of little value if someone or something controls property? The left would say that that is an argument against purely formal freedom and for some sort of positive freedom -- one that would guarantee people the resources they need to use their formal freedom.

They might also use it as an argument for limiting the property rights of employers and other big owners -- to make racial discrimination illegal, for example.

At the very least, it seems like an argument for using the state to guarantee that private property is highly diffused. Would you agree?

Maybe you and the left liberals can come together on something: namely, opposition to highly concentrated wealth.