Private property is in many ways like a private form of state. The owner determines what goes on within the area he or she "owns," and therefore exercises a monopoly of power over it. When power is exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of coercive authority. As Bob Black points out in The Abolition of Work:

"The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are 'free' is lying or stupid."

Unlike a company, the democratic state can be influenced by its citizens, who are able to act in ways that limit (to some extent) the power of the ruling elite to be "left alone" to enjoy their power. As a result, the wealthy hate the democratic aspects of the state, and its ordinary citizens, as potential threats to their power. This "problem" was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in early 19th-century America:

"It is easy to perceive that the wealthy members of the community entertain a hearty distaste to the democratic institutions of their country. The populace is at once the object of their scorn and their fears."

These fears have not changed, nor has the contempt for democratic ideas. To quote one US Corporate Executive, "one man, one vote will result in the eventual failure of democracy as we know it." {L. Silk and D. Vogel, Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business, pp. 189f}

This contempt for democracy does not mean that capitalists are anti-state. Far from it. As previously noted, capitalists depend on the state. This is because "[classical] Liberalism, is in theory a kind of anarchy without socialism, and therefore is simply a lie, for freedom is not possible without equality. . .The criticism liberals direct at government consists only of wanting to deprive it some of its functions and to call upon the capitalists to fight it out amongst themselves, but it cannot attack the repressive functions which are of its essence: for without the gendarme the property owner could not exist." {Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 46}.

Capitalists call upon and support the state when it acts in their interests and when it supports their authority and power. The "conflict" between state and capital is like two gangsters fighting over the proceeds of a robbery: they will squabble over the loot and who has more power in the gang, but they need each other to defend their "property" against those from whom they stole it.

The statist nature of private property can be seen in "Libertarian" (i.e. minarchist, or "classical" liberal) works representing the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism:

$Qf one starts a private town, on land whose acquisition did not and does not violate the Lockean proviso [of non-aggression], persons who chose to move there or later remain there would have no right to a say in how the town was run, unless it was granted to them by the decision procedures for the town which the owner had established" {Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 270}

This is voluntary feudalism, nothing more. Of course, it can be claimed that "market forces" will result in the most liberal owners being the most successful, but a nice master is still a master. To paraphrase Tolstoy, "the liberal capitalist is like a kind donkey owner. He will do everything for the donkey -- care for it, feed it, wash it. Everything except get off its back!" And as Bob Black notes, "Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the essence of servitude. . . . {F}reedom means more than the right to change masters." {The Libertarian as Conservative}. That supporters of capitalism often claim that this "right" to change masters is the essence of "freedom" is a telling indictment of the capitalist notion of "liberty."

Steven Holmes and Cass Sunstein have made a strong case, in this and their other writings, that while we can appreciate and defend free enterprise, private property, private media, free exercise of religion, and so on, we still need a strong State to impose liberal constraints on private power.

In fact, that's what classical social contract theory is all about. The State is created by a social contract to protect individuals from one another, since the state of nature is a state of war between men, in which man is a wolf to other man.
Historically, the liberal revolutions were fought against not only absolute monarchs, but also against authoritarian churches, catholic and protestant, that used State power as a secular arm ("braccio seculare") to impose their own dogmas to believers and non believers, thus excercising an undue "power over the hearts of man" (Baruch Spinoza).

While we should advocate a strong marketplace of ideas (including religious ones), and while we should appreciate religion contribution to civic virtues, we still have to protect our liberal institutions from ilegitimate attempts to get these institutions under the control of iliberal and anti-liberal religious dogmas that want to fight equal religious liberty for all citizens and groups alike, believers and non-believers, men and women, adults and children, black and white, gay and straight. That's what separation of religious communities and State is all about.

When we think of Enron, for instance, we realize that corporations can be a Leviathan to many defenseless citizens, by totally destroying their life savings and prospects, with profound psicological consequences. That's plain evil. More, we realize that some already rich man will evade their duties of citizenship and civility (v.g. the duty of paying taxes) to get even more rich.

I am in favor of a strong market economy. It allows for human creativity, it creates wealth, it creates habits of work, trust and tolerance, it decentralizes authority, and by doing this it can further human rights.

But I think that only a robust liberal State, with strong legislative, administrative and judicial branches, can counter the threat to liberty, security and well being that some corporations here and there may represent. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton said. Only a strong liberal State can make, market economy both possible and credible.

Originally liberals are defenders of the State, an institution tipical of a civilized society. John Locke is the main example here. The liberal State is a mark of rationalization and civilization, as german philosopher G.F. Hegel would put it. That's why Oliver Wendell Holmes used to say that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. I totally agree with that. Liberal thought fears both authoritarian states, weak states or anarchy. In all these situations the strongest will prevail at the expense of the weak.

Of course much needs to be done to better the State, to make it more just, transparent and efficient. A lot can be done, if there is the political will to do this. One of the reasons why state reform is so difficult has to do with the way private interests, lobbies, and naked preferences take the dominance and try to use the monopoly of legitimate coercion to further their own ends. That's why a civic republican liberalism is so important when it comes to reform the State.

I think there is plenty of room for a strong and commited "intelligent design movement" in politics and institution building that is able to come up with liberating public institutions that support a liberating private sphere.

But one thing is certain: evading the cost of rights will, in the end, be evading their benefits too. Sunstein and Holmes... we got it.

The authors' premise is that all rights cost money to enforce, and therefore rights are a good purchased by society for the individual, and therefore are in the same class as entitlements. The policy prescriptions that flow from this are two-fold: (1) entitlement spending ( a "right" to housing, top-notch medical care, etc., even if one never raises a finger to do a day of work) are rights that may not be denied, and would only ever want to be denied by selfish rightists; (2) traditional rights (free speech, free association, etc.) are created by society, and enforced by society, therefore have costs, and may be constrained in the interests of economy.

Most transparent sectarian political screeds at least resort to the rhetorical fallacy of argument from authority: basing an argument on the fact that Jefferson, or Madison, said it first. These authors don't even do the work to commit that fallacy; they merely assert their opinions.

An example: they assert that the right to not to have property arbitrarilly confiscated is granted by the government (as opposed to existing before the government, and continuiing under it), and that the government must thus fund anti-corruption investigators and judges in order to grant this right. They entirely miss the fact that the right under question would not even be under fire if it were not for an early government policy of supporting confiscation. This realization transforms their false argument about rights into the more factually correct statement that "if the government implements one flawed program, then it follows that we may need yet another program to keep the first in check".

The fact that perhaps both programs could be trashed is not even considered.

All in all, this book is a [...] piece from two authors unwilling to argue their point on either a philosophical or utilitarian basis, and instead depend on unsupported assertions and illogical thinking.