libertarianism and exploitation

the war on exploitation is a libertarian war.

during the last century we saw hoards of social-fascist regimes (communist regimes in pc-speak) imposing, to paraphrase galbraith, the exploitation of man by man just in order to end with the exploitation of man by man. this century man shall liberate himself from, well, man. and it shall be done using the government as a tool, though no guerrilla warfare or armed revolution ought to be involved.
screw all hitherto "cool" revolutions: libertarian principles, democratic means.

the fight against exploitation is not the monopoly of marxism, caudillos or guerrilleros. at high schools and universities you see plenty of kids taking the ché guevara for an exquisite liberator. this people have failed to consider libertarianism not because of the lack of "cool" promotional gadgets, but because they haven't been informed about the libertarian discourse against exploitation.
libertarians are so absorbed in the fundamentals, that they forget to address the issues of everyday life.

as a consequence, 9 out of 10 people are going to tell you that they understand laissez faire as an ideology that favours the rich and powerful. needless to say, libertarians are seen as the useful idiots of the establishment; perpetuators of the status quo. perhaps the way in which libertarians are perceived is just the same way in which libertarians perceive liberals: clowns with a rhetoric against big corporations, rent-seeking and privileges who end up favouring (in this case, via protectionism, in the case of libertarianism, via carte blanche) these very monsters, thus putting limits to social mobility and retarding the creation of greater opportunities.

how come the ideology of individual liberties is not immediately identified with the war on that most heinous violation of individual rights--exploitation?

I say the "new" perception of economies of scale is to blame. the tolerance of libertarians to big corps and transnationals in the name of economies of scale has become overwhelmingly lax. libertarianism ought to reconsider schumacher if it wants to stay afloat and to be the ideology of choice of the common man.
the intolerance to monopoly power and transnational abuses in the name of innovation, competition and equity ought to take the spotlight.

even some self-proclaimed libertarians believe that laissez faire-ism must be supported unconditionally, irrespectively of the accidents of space, history, the situation of the poor ex ante and ex post (especially in the short term), global and local politics, collective action problems, distribution, culture, etc. those among them who are aware of the consequences argue that the new equilibrium will multiply the fish and the bread in and of itself. but the economic equilibrium in an of itself doesn't address the questions of covering the basic needs of the very poor and of guaranteeing a level field for fair competition to take place at stage 2.
government intervention is a minor evil when compared to unattended basic needs and unrestrained inequity.

in this jihad against exploitation, the role of governments will have to be crucial mainly for two reasons:

-first, the scale of the "new" economy's big corps and transnationals demands greater strength in government institutions just in order to regulate them at a minimum so as to see that social costs are being properly internalized
-second, the main duty of the government is to protect the rights of each individual: if an act of exploitation takes place at home, then the government will have to act in the name of the victim and of society; if any act of exploitation is committed abroad, then the government will have to take measures in order to protect its citizens from unfair competition.
thus, the war on exploitation is a matter of domestic and foreign policy.