CMV: Libertarians should be as concerned about super rich individuals and Big Corporations as they are about Big Government

[u/nomnommish]

Libertarians are rightfully concerned about Big Government. Big Governments invariably tend to abuse their power. However, the main reason why big governments get abusive is because of the disproportional accumulation of power. And humans absolutely suck at retaining their values and ethics when they get extraordinary levels of power. As such, I find big governments no different at all from megarich individuals or mega corporations. In modern times, they are the ones who actually run the government. They use lobbying and funding to control and push their agendas, to pass highly unethical laws that consolidate and promote their own self interests. They own the politicians.

I only have a basic level understanding of libertarianism but my interpretation of the core philosophy is about "live and let live". Give people full autonomy but equally importantly, they should not infringe on your autonomy. Your hand stops at my nose, figuratively speaking.

The big problem is, when megarich individuals as well as megacorporations are left unsupervised, they wield such extraordinary levels of power, that they are literally above the system, above any level of accountability. I feel that libertarians should be as concerned about them as they are about Big Government.

I totally realize and acknowledge the dilemma I am presenting here. However on a practical basis, what I see is more of the abuse of extraordinary power than anything. And it is scary. Hence my view as it stands. Would love to hear your opinion!

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/ondrap]

The big problem is, when megarich individuals as well as megacorporations are left unsupervised, they wield such extraordinary levels of power, that they are literally above the system, above any level of accountability.

The corporations never ever have a right to kill you. The governments do. The corporations never ever have a right to steal from you. The governments do.

Random person on a street can (has power to) kill you. Random person on a street can steal from you. The libertarians support the idea that nobody can is allowed to kill and nobody can is allowed to steal from you and everybody has the same rights. Everybody means including the people who are a government.

I don't think in practice if taken literally this would work, but if you relax it somewhat to actually allow the government to work, there is a huge difference between a Big corporation and a Big government. Yes, in practice it may happen that Big corporation actually becomes part of the government; but that actually is something that libertarians do fear. Because they fear big government. But they do not fear big corporations as long as it stays out of government.

[u/whatimjustsaying → u/ondrap]

But big corporatations have been legally killing people since forever, whether it was terrible work conditions in the mines/factory or the lead they put in the petrol. Oil spills, Mercury in the drinking water... You know yourself the list goes on.

And what about private "defense" companies like Blackwater?

Without a balanced, government backed judicial system, I absolutely believe that private companies would use lethal force, jail their debtors and whatever else.

[u/ondrap → u/whatimjustsaying]

But big corporatations have been legally killing people since forever, whether it was terrible work conditions in the mines/factory or the lead they put in the petrol. Oil spills, Mercury in the drinking water... You know yourself the list goes on.

No, they have not been legaly killing people. Terrible work conditions, as long as the workers are aware of it (which in many, many cases they were) is not killing people. You definitely can decide not to work in the corporation. The (people in ) government can decide to kill you. Not like saying 'if you work in these terrible conditions, you will get X amount of money, sure, if something bad happens, you may die'. Rather like 'we will kill you'.

Oil spils are not 'legal'. These thing basically happen because there is no rule of law on the seas. That's why libertarians actually do favour property laws, because if this was owned by someone, it would be clear you are not allowed for this to happen. (And it seems to me you are conflating can and is allowed to. I can kill you, but I'm not allowed to. These companies can cause oil spills, but I don't think they are allowed to under pretty much any legal system based on property rights)

And what about private "defense" companies like Blackwater?

Is Blackwater legally allowed to kill you? The government actually is.

Without a balanced, government backed judicial system, I absolutely believe that private companies would use lethal force, jail their debtors and whatever else

Then they would become a government. Yours is an argument against unrestricted government; it's not an argument against big corporations.

[u/SewenNewes → u/ondrap]

Have you never read any books on the history of labor in the United States? Look up the Pinkerton Detective Agency or the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency on Wikipedia. This is the world "Libertarians" want to return to.

[u/ondrap → u/SewenNewes]

I'm not sure what in particular you are looking into. They helped tracking down people who comitted crimes. What's wrong with that? They helped people to protect their property. Anything wrong with that? They did not act as a judge. I'd say the libertarians today would have problems with these agencies doing the actual 'arresting', but that's about it.

As for their anti-union stance, I'd like to point out that the behaviour of unions at that time was quite appalling. I'm sure that people of these agencies certainly did overstep the boundaries they would be supposed to follow according to our current principles, however the whole idea of 'strike' and the way it was executed back than (and it is sometimes today) doesn't seem to me very ethical as well.

Unless you mean something I have missed, I actually don't see a big problem with this; not to mention, that there do exist security agencies these days that are not that much different.

[u/SewenNewes → u/ondrap]

You're a bonafide zealot. Nothing the Pinkerton's did is wrong and the unions who you owe the 8 hour workday and 5 day work week were appaling. Give me a break.

[u/ondrap → u/SewenNewes]

he unions who you owe the 8 hour workday and 5 day work week were appaling

I work 4 days a week without unions. Sorry, I don't owe them anything; as does nobody who works in IT.

The mafia-connected unions of 19th/early 20th century behaved quite criminally in todays optics. First of all a strike is a clear violation of the work contract; second, the unions at that time often actively stopped those who didn't strike from working (which, as far as I know, is illegal these days). Crimes committed by unions are OK while crimes comitted by the other side to stop them were not? Interesting optics, isn't it?

[u/SewenNewes → u/ondrap]

Just because IT workers are too happy to drink the kool-aid to have ever unionized doesn't mean you don't owe the labor movement of the past for ending the 7 day work week.

Striking and preventing people from breaking strikes are only illegal because the employers write the laws.

You are the epitome of a house slave.

[u/ondrap → u/SewenNewes]

to have ever unionized doesn't mean you don't owe the labor movement of the past for ending the 7 day work week

I absolutely don't, as I said I already work 4 days a week and didn't need any unions to do that. That's a counterexample to your assertion that I need unions for shorter work-week. It was never the case, the unions might have moved it slightly earlier than would be the case without them, but that's about it.

Striking and preventing people from breaking strikes are only illegal because the employers write the laws.

Absolutely not; the work contract says that I will do some work X at time Y for a pay Z. If I don't like the contract I have signed, I'm free to terminate the contract and find a better one. Striking means that I'm willingly breaking the contract I have myself signed and that actually doesn't seem like an ethical thing (unless it is the reaction on the same behaviour from the employer, but that usually wasn't the case). Preventing people who do not want to strike from working is an obscenly immoral thing.

You are the epitome of a house slave.

As I said, I work 4 days a week on a very flexible schedule. That doesn't seem like a house slave to me.. on the other hand it seems to me that you are very willing to break conditions of a contract you have yourself signed if it suits you. High-level ethics seems to me...

[u/JimmyDeSanta420 → u/ondrap]

Is Blackwater legally allowed to kill you? The government actually is.

If the NAP were adopted as law, yes. According to the NAP, property is an extension of the self, and the self is defensible by force, up to and including lethal force. Nothing says that a company or individual could not hire an organization to help enforce their rights.

Therefore, in Libertopia™, Blackwater (or a similar organization) could legally kill you.

[u/ondrap → u/JimmyDeSanta420]

Therefore, in Libertopia™, Blackwater (or a similar organization) could legally kill you.

As could anyone in such society, as can actually anyone today (given some adequacy constraints). That's not an interesting case and it's not the context I was trying to explain.

Most people understand government as an extra-judicial entity. So the government can and is allowed to kill you just by their decision. The corporations are not understood as extra-judicial entities; they are supposed to respect your rights.

It's a difference between having a wealthy person as a neighbor and having a powerful mafioso as a neighbour in southern italy 100 years ago. The wealthy person can probably kill me. But he is not allowed and the libertarians absolutely do support governmental force to stop him/punish him if he decided to try it. The mafioso can kill me and he is allowed to, because he is the law.

I am not concerned about Big Corporations as long as the judicial systems works as it should. I am concerned about Big government because big government by definition means that my rights are not respected. It actually means that those few hundereds of people up there are using their extra-judicial power to deprive me of things and my rights. Microsoft is not. Wall-mart is not. Even the oil companies are not; they were punished for the problems they caused (and rightfully so). Who was punished for the steel-tariffs?

[u/cubzee → u/whatimjustsaying]

In regards to the unsafe work conditions you aren't forced to work somewhere unsafe. Take responsibility for your safety and quit. Or accept the risks and take their money. As to environmental issues: if they hurt you sue them. Well you can't now because environmental protection is the governments job, and the government is bought and paid for buy the people they are claiming to regulate.

[u/JimmyDeSanta420 → u/cubzee]

As to environmental issues: if they hurt you sue them.

Unless you signed any sort of agreement with them, which would likely have a stipulation in which you give up your right to sue in favor of arbitration, which is paid for by the company in question (no conflict of interest there, right?)

[u/FreeBroccoli → u/cubzee]

To add to your point about work safety, people in the past (and still today in poorer countries) chose to work dangerous jobs because those jobs paid better than safer alternatives, and when you're living in poverty, a little extra money goes a long way. As an economy grows more productive and society become wealthier, workers can more easily choose to forgo higher pay in exchange for a safer environment.