You feel your freedom is threatened because other people insist on being slaves. That qualifies as being simultaneously paranoid and narcissistic.

And yes, I see no fundamental psychological differnce between those who seek power through commercial or political means. Indeed, the boundary line is vague and indistinct, and those inclined to pursue power cross it easily and frequently, or pay their agents to do so.

I've always maintained that modern libertarians and classical anarchists have much in common. The difference was that the anarchist rejected both political AND commercial masters. Every man had one vote in his government, and every worker owned one voting share in his workplace.

Some form of organization, leadership and hierarchy is essential in any civilization, and especially so in a highly complex one like ours. But the anarchist felt it had to be organized on democratic lines, by the consent of the governed, to coin a phrase.

The Communists forgot the part about the political power needing to be curtailed. The Capitalists forgot that commercial power needs to be restrained just as much.

THe anarchists felt the workers, not the stockholders, should have this power. And they had confidence that the workers would have the wisdom to vote in their own long term interest, even if it meant short term sacrifices.

Now you can argue that in a one-man, wholly-owned enterprise, or in the case of the self-employed, he who owns that business should have the freedom to conduct it any way he likes. But business today is a collective enterprise, dare I say it, a socialized one. Bosses don't own anything, they are employees too, they are public servants just like politicians, and they should be treated the same way.

Why is it conservatives insist people are the ones best qualified to make the decisions that determine their livelihood, and then insist that employees are unqualified to do the same thing?