In Defence of Mainstream Libertarianism: Why the Free Market Is Still the Best Alternative
Sebastian Wang

Kevin Carson’s Formal vs. Substantive Statism is an interesting and provocative critique of mainstream libertarianism, but it ultimately fails because it buys into the same tired, leftist assumption: that the free market isn’t really free. Carson insists that corporate power is just another form of state power, that capitalism as we know it is the result of centuries of government-backed theft, and that breaking up monopolies and redistributing resources is the only way to create true liberty. This all sounds radical, even insightful, but it leads to a dead end.

For all his talk of dismantling privilege, Carson makes the same mistake that leftists always make: he thinks he can tinker his way to justice. He imagines that some enlightened group—whether a post-statist mutualist order or just a reformed state with better policies—can strip corporations of unfair advantages, and build a society where market competition is truly fair. But what he ignores is that markets are already the best mechanism for breaking up privilege. They are the most powerful tool we have for eroding monopolies, redistributing wealth, and preventing elite control. The real problem isn’t capitalism—it’s the constant state interference that prevents capitalism from working properly.

Markets Work—When You Let Them

Mainstream libertarianism is based on a simple idea: if you want more prosperity and less coercion, get the government out of the way. This isn’t just ideological dogma—it’s backed by history. Every time governments step back and allow voluntary exchange to take over, people get richer, innovation explodes, and social mobility increases.

Carson, however, argues that most “free markets” are rigged from the start. He claims that today’s capitalist system is just the result of historical expropriation, colonialism, and state-enforced monopolies. And sure, to some extent, he’s right—plenty of unfair advantages have been handed out over the centuries. But the idea that the current economy is permanently tainted by its history is just an excuse for more government intervention.

Even if we accept Carson’s argument that much of modern capitalism was shaped by past injustices, the real question is: what do we do about it now? And the answer is not to let the state step in and “correct” the market. The only real solution is to strip away the privileges and let competition do its job.

Where existing economic structures are based on coercion, mere abstention from action is not neutrality—it is a decision to allow the status quo to continue.

Carson makes this point to justify aggressive intervention against big corporations, but it’s actually an argument against intervention. The state has created a rigged system by subsidising corporations, protecting industries from competition, and enforcing artificial monopolies. The solution isn’t to tinker with the economy even more—it’s to get rid of those state-created privileges and let competition sort out the rest.

Why Anti-Capitalist “Libertarians” Are Just Socialists in Disguise

Carson is part of a growing trend of “left-libertarians” who like to pretend they’re against state power while pushing for policies that would require massive state intervention. He wants to break up monopolies, abolish intellectual property, and redistribute land and capital to eliminate “structural privilege.” But who, exactly, is going to carry out these policies? Who decides which property holdings are legitimate and which aren’t? Who enforces the redistribution?

It all sounds very anti-authoritarian until you realise that it requires some central authority with the power to reorganise the economy according to Carson’s vision. And that’s exactly the problem. Every attempt to impose economic fairness through force just ends up creating new forms of privilege and coercion.

This is why mainstream libertarians have always been wary of the kind of thinking Carson promotes. The moment you start allowing some committee—whether it’s a mutualist co-op or a reformed state—to determine which economic arrangements are “fair,” you’ve already lost the fight for liberty. Markets are the only fair mechanism because they allow people to act freely without a central authority making those decisions for them.

The Myth of “Substantive Statism”

One of Carson’s key arguments is that economic power can be just as oppressive as state power. He claims that large corporations, through their control of land, capital, and employment, exercise a form of de facto statism.

But this argument completely ignores the reality of how power works. A state can force you to pay taxes, draft you into war, or throw you in prison. A corporation can offer you a job. There is no comparison between the two.

Carson and his ilk like to frame capitalism as coercive because they see wealth inequality as inherently unjust. But inequality itself isn’t the problem—lack of choice is. If a single company dominates an industry and workers have no alternatives, that’s a problem. But it’s not because corporations are inherently oppressive; it’s because government policies have prevented competition from breaking them up.

The solution isn’t to smash big business—it’s to open up markets, deregulate industries, and remove the barriers that stop new competitors from entering the field. The best way to break up monopolies isn’t through government intervention; it’s through free competition.

Carson’s Libertarianism Would Lead Straight to More State Control

Carson presents himself as an alternative to mainstream libertarianism, but his philosophy leads straight back to the same leftist nonsense we’ve seen a thousand times before. He wants to fight corporate dominance, but his solutions all require central planning. He wants to correct economic unfairness, but his methods would just create new layers of bureaucracy.

A genuine free market would require abolishing not only direct state intervention, but also the structural privileges that have accumulated over centuries of exploitation.

This sounds good on paper, but it’s a fantasy. You cannot “abolish structural privilege” without an authority deciding who gets what. And once you accept that authority, you’ve abandoned liberty entirely.

This is why mainstream libertarians are right to focus on limiting government power rather than playing economic revisionists. The only path to genuine freedom is through pure, unrestricted market competition—not through some forced restructuring of the economy based on subjective ideas of fairness.

Conclusion: The Real Fight for Freedom

Carson and the left-libertarians believe they are exposing the “blind spots” of mainstream libertarianism. They claim to be the real defenders of liberty, unmasking corporate tyranny and pushing for a truly free society. But in reality, they are just reinventing socialism with a libertarian façade.

They talk about decentralisation, but their vision requires massive government intervention. They talk about abolishing privilege, but they want a central authority to decide who is privileged and who isn’t. They talk about breaking up monopolies, but they ignore the fact that free competition already does that better than any regulator ever could.

Mainstream libertarianism, for all its flaws, understands the one simple truth that Carson refuses to accept: the free market is the only mechanism that can truly deliver freedom. Any attempt to “fix” it through intervention just leads back to control, coercion, and statism—whether formal or substantive.

The real fight for liberty isn’t about dismantling corporations or redistributing resources. It’s about removing every barrier that stops people from trading and living on their own terms. And that’s exactly what mainstream libertarianism, at its best, fights for.