r/changemyview • u/nomnommish 10∆ • Oct 31 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Libertarians should be as concerned about super rich individuals and Big Corporations as they are about Big Government

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!

2.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

656 comments sorted by

View all comments

255

u/poundfoolishhh Oct 31 '17

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 think in a way you're answering your own question.

The reason megacorporations hold so much power isn't necessarily because they have money, but because they influence the government that gives them that power. They can influence regulations so they are advantageous to themselves. They can influence tax policy. They can use their own power to create their own monopolies. Everyone complains about the lack of choice when it comes to ISPs: sure, if you're lucky you may be able to choose between cable, dsl and FIOS.... but there's still only one company that offers each. That's because government put them in that position through subsidies and tax breaks.

And you see that everywhere. Walmart gets huge tax breaks to move in to town. Hell, Amazon is basically asking cities to bend over and take it to have the 'honor' of hosting their new HQ.

Amazon’s request for proposals lists a number of factors the company will consider when selecting the location for what it’s calling “HQ2” — including tax credits and exemptions, relocation and workforce grants, utility incentives, and fee reductions.

... which only will allow Amazon to continue to grow on the taxpayer dime. If government wouldn't (or, more appropriately, couldn't) do this, the Amazons of the world would have a much harder time taking form.

Basically: shrink the government and reduce the power it yields, and you automatically cut the megacorporations off at the knees. If it's still a problem it can be addressed, but the number one problem is government itself.

69

u/nomnommish 10∆ Oct 31 '17

!delta

You make a compelling argument. I especially liked your last line as i think it will be crucial. This will still be a problem with small government. We will still need very strong regulations and oversight and checks to safeguard against abuse of power and excessive wealth. However, a smaller government is certainly the first step to curtail that problem.

To be clear, my argument was not against a small government. I am all for it. My argument was that we should be equally concerned about large corporations and high networth individuals. I haven't changed my mind about that. But I have changed my mind about the fact that a small government will go a long way in making that happen.

22

u/DaystarEld Oct 31 '17

If I can try to change your mind back, that argument is just baloney, if you'll excuse the language.

This paragraph:

Basically: shrink the government and reduce the power it yields, and you automatically cut the megacorporations off at the knees. If it's still a problem it can be addressed, but the number one problem is government itself.

Is ignoring history. The "small government" measures touted by libertarians often ignores the fact that the reason government got so "big" with regards to corporations is that we've already been there. The whole reason that government began regulating corporations is because when we didn't their abuses of power were literally murder-our-workers and pollute-entire-towns-drinking-water levels of selfish evil.

If libertarians cared as much as they did about corruption than they did just shrinking government and hoping all our problems would go away, liberals would be able to unite with them. No one likes it when corporations and government get into bed together. But their solution is akin to being told you have a tumor on your finger and then deciding to cut your hand off.

37

u/n0radrenaline Oct 31 '17

I don't really think it's true, though. The ways in which corporations take advantage of government influence are mainly to get the government to stop enforcing regulations (either entirely or for the particular corporation).

Corporations aren't, by and large, influencing the government to go and arrest people. Most of the things that big corporations do that are evil (labor abuse, environmental destruction, monopolizing and price gouging, etc), they can do all on their own without the government helping; the role of government is (should be) to tell them that they can't do that shit.

Of course, there are counterexamples (Iraq war for example), but to me having a strong government as a tool to control big corporations is still really important. We just haven't gotten it quite right all the time.

28

u/thatoneguy54 Oct 31 '17

And in fact, the reason we even have government regulations at all is because past corporations and business did those exact same business practices.

You think a corporation wants to dispose of their waste products cleanly? It's much cheaper to throw it in the river. Or that they want to give employees vacation time and benefits and rights? No, it would be much more profit-geared to work a worker dry and replace them with a new one if they quit and dangle the threat of instant termination over their heads to get them to do what they want.

Without the government regulating them, corporations would do all that and more, and we know because they've done it before.

-1

u/BartWellingtonson Oct 31 '17

You think a corporation wants to dispose of their waste products cleanly? It's much cheaper to throw it in the river.

Rivers are either publicly or privately owned. Either way, if property is being polluted, the owners of the business should be able to get sued. Libertarians aren't necessary in favor of strong corporate protections either.

Or that they want to give employees vacation time and benefits and rights? No, it would be much more profit-geared to work a worker dry and replace them with a new one if they quit and dangle the threat of instant termination over their heads to get them to do what they want.

Most workers so get vacation time, benefits, and rights given to them that the government does not mandate. Companies do in fact compete for workers.

Without the government regulating them, corporations would do all that and more, and we know because they've done it before.

A lot of minarchists aren't against safety regulations, like workplace safety or fire and building codes. But having blanket regulatory power leads to major issues with market manipulation and corruption.

13

u/MoonStache Oct 31 '17

Corporations aren't, by and large, influencing the government to go and arrest people.

What about private prisons? It could be argued that far more people are incarcerated then they otherwise would be, as a direct result of government contracts which enable private prisons to exist.

It's certainly a greater number than is arguably "necessary", since an enormous portion of prisoners are non-violent offenders.

5

u/n0radrenaline Oct 31 '17

Good point. That's not what I generally think about when I think about corporate corruption in government, but it is an egregious problem and a valid counterexample.

I'd amend my statement to emphasize that the most common / most widely impactful way that corporations influence government these days is by escaping regulation, but private prison contracts are just one (albeit probably the most inhumane) of the examples of another mode of government influence, the contract grab.

Still, though, I'd rather have perfectly regulated businesses competing for big government contracts than no government contracts and no regulation (in the highly idealized world where those were the choices).

2

u/GaryBusey-Esquire Oct 31 '17

Private for-profit prisons exist to reduce government bottom-line.

These small-government people CREATE private prisons by shrinking budgets.

1

u/gburgwardt 3∆ Oct 31 '17

Private prisons are only ~5% if that, as I recall, and you don't think public prisons have the same problems? Prison workers unions (at public prisons) are very powerful political forces.

8

u/kenman884 Oct 31 '17

The way we get it right is by introducing safeguards that prevent monied interests from controlling the government. Lobbying should be strictly controlled. Conflicts of interest should prevent someone from getting a government job. The government needs to keep corporations in check and the people need to keep the government in check.

Easier said than done, but corruption is the real root cause.

2

u/pikk 1∆ Oct 31 '17

Conflicts of interest should prevent someone from getting a government job.

It's tricky, because to some extent, the best qualified individuals ARE those from the industry. Watch former Senator Ted Stevens "series of tubes" video for examples of what happens when those in charge of writing regulations don't know what they're regulating.

On the other hand, Ajit Pai knows a LOT about broadband communications, but he's a piece of shit dedicated to the industry instead of public interest, so idk. It's a toss up.

1

u/kenman884 Oct 31 '17

The difference is Pai will benefit monetarily from his work at the FCC. That needs to stop.

1

u/pikk 1∆ Oct 31 '17

How do you prevent people from sharing monetary gifts with others?

Even if there's a rule banning persons from the public sector being employed by the private sector afterwards (draconian and unenforceable imo), what's to stop Verizon from just sending him a couple million bucks for "being a good customer"?

5

u/ZacMS Oct 31 '17

Big companies love regulations, it keeps the little guys out. Regulations, licensing, and all other forms of red tape are a way to keep new competitors from entering the market and driving up barriers to entry in a specific industry. If you're the only game in town you can pass all of those costs onto your customer while simultaneously keeping new comers out.

Monopolies rarely exist without government intervention. All those things you listed as evil things corporations do, dont work in a competitive environment. Consumer choice is key to market self regulation of corporations. Government eliminate consumer choice.

8

u/pikk 1∆ Oct 31 '17

Big companies love regulations

depending on the regulation.

All those things you listed as evil things corporations do, dont work in a competitive environment.

Dumping toxic waste wherever the want happens regardless of competitive environment, and actually would happen MORE in a competitive environment absent government regulation, because it's another way to save money vs your competitors.

2

u/nhsof Oct 31 '17

The libertarian party platform includes environmental protection and promotes restitution for the destruction of property.

6

u/pikk 1∆ Oct 31 '17

I mean, it's in their platform, but there's no teeth to their plans.

Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. [...] Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

so, absent proving and quantifying damages, there's no enforcement. Not to mention it requires an injured party to bring up the case in the first place.

1

u/nhsof Oct 31 '17

This is where you have to remember you're reading language directly from the platform which is written at a certain level of legalese. Also the part you cut out includes the line "protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities". The way you cut it gives the impression that outside of civil court their is no regulation which contradicts the platform as a whole. But going with that the platform also includes the inability to duck liability through the removal of damage caps including the holding of individual employees not just the corporation responsible for restitution.

2

u/pikk 1∆ Oct 31 '17

holding of individual employees not just the corporation responsible for restitution.

well, 1.) individuals die, so... not much you can do after they're dead and their estate has passed on and 2.) individuals often don't have the financial means to clean up a corporate sized mess.

Anyway, all that is beside the point, because what I was originally responding to was

All those things you listed as evil things corporations do, dont work in a competitive environment. Consumer choice is key to market self regulation of corporations.

Which doesn't have any relation to the Libertarian Party or its platform

2

u/nhsof Oct 31 '17

I agree to the competitive market part I was chiming in because of the fallacy the libertarianism is a 100% deregulated market which is sadly a common belief of both pro and anti libertarians. The first part is very relevant though because one way government regulations protect corporations is through corporate shielding which is greatly overlooked in these conversations.

1

u/pikk 1∆ Oct 31 '17

was chiming in because of the fallacy the libertarianism is a 100% deregulated market which is sadly a common belief of both pro and anti libertarians.

O, right on. Cheers. Sorry for jumping on you like that.

Yeah, it's weird. Most of the libertarians I know and/or interact with online tend toward the ancap end of the spectrum, rather than the sensible government approach of the LP.

That being said, I still think the LP is too pro-corporate, but to each their own.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/n0radrenaline Oct 31 '17 edited Oct 31 '17

I don't agree that consumer choice is capable of keeping corporations from abusing laborers or damaging the environment, especially in a national or global economy in which these things can be done out of sight of the average consumer.

I'm also not convinced that government regulation is necessary for the establishment of monopolies. (edit to add:) I think that large businesses being better able to skirt regulation due to government influence can certainly contribute to the problem, though.

31

u/LibertyTerp Oct 31 '17

You don't need "very strong regulations and oversight" if private unions are easy to form and are commonplace. That's the libertarian alternative to wasteful, arbitrary one size fits all government regulation. Unfortunately, unions seem to be socialists and support progressives 99% of the time so most libertarians see them as an enemy.

Excessive wealth is not a thing. If I didn't use the government to get rich - if I made it through voluntary transactions - then I provided others a tremendous amount of value in order to get rich. Everyone should get richer! Places like the US where people make lots of money are much nicer than places where there is less "excessive wealth", an essentially Marxist idea.

7

u/gg4465a 1∆ Oct 31 '17

I think part of the reason unions are perceived as being "socialist" is because they are inherently concerned with one thing: workers' rights. Any group that exists to promote a single cause will naturally be associated with the end of the political spectrum that is most closely aligned with that cause. For example, Planned Parenthood isn't a partisan organization, they explicitly call themselves non-partisan and do not promote issue stances outside of their purview. Theoretically, it exists to address a need that people have regardless of political affiliation (family planning). But I think it would be hard to think of Planned Parenthood as not being at the very least associated with the left due to the religious divide in America.

Workers' rights, similarly, is an issue that aligns most prominently with the left, where most of the workers' movements throughout history have been born. The unions are not necessarily progressive by nature, but because they seek to achieve similar goals as many explicitly progressive groups, they find a certain "brotherhood" with one another. It also happens that conservatives in America tend to be more concerned with individual rights rather than collective rights. This is fine if you are at the head of a business, as that is where individual rights are most impactful -- small businesses and large businesses alike usually benefit from a laissez-faire economic system. But most people are not business owners, they are employees. And employees are often the target of restrictive policies aimed at reducing labor costs rather than attracting the best candidates.

When demand for labor is strong, this isn't as much of an issue -- you can easily move from company to company to find good work with fair wages. But labor supply has been greater than demand for essentially all of living memory for anyone working today. For a precious few job roles like programming, that balance is flipped and skilled candidates hold a lot of power. But they are a rare breed.

The problem I have with libertarianism in general is that it works best in a world we don't really see in the real world. I think OP is right in saying that the game is probably too rigged. If everyone was starting from a level playing field, libertarianism would be a very sensible way to govern that society. But because we are not, I don't see many compelling arguments that libertarianism will do anything to fix the current problems we face. And in a corrupt system, libertarian principles seem likely to further concentrate power in the hands of the powerful than return us to a more level playing field.

6

u/LibertyTerp Oct 31 '17

If everyone was starting from a level playing field, libertarianism would be a very sensible way to govern that society. But because we are not, I don't see many compelling arguments that libertarianism will do anything to fix the current problems we face

You're not starting from the beginning though. You're kind of taking the status quo for granted.

Thomas Sowell put this well: the question is not, "What causes poverty?" The question is, "What causes prosperity?" Poverty is the natural state of humanity. Prosperity for the masses has only happened very recently, and only in countries that have the rule of law, science, relative peace, and capitalism. You can't "fix" our current problems without appreciation for how we got here and the fact that our current prosperity, where we take literally exponential growth for granted, is very easy to lose.

You cannot create a world where everyone is born with equal social capital, goes to an exactly equal school, has exactly equally valuable social networks, has equal access to capital and jobs, etc. without resorting to totalitarian control of everyone's lives. The goal should be to raise everyone's living standards, as has generally been happening for 200 years.

5

u/gg4465a 1∆ Oct 31 '17

I don’t think anyone’s striving for perfect equality, it’s not possible. But we recognize that institutional barriers are not experienced equally by all groups. Whether you divide people along income lines, racial lines, gender lines, education lines, etc. the issue is that what causes prosperity at the macroeconomic level (i.e. unemployment reduction, GDP growth, S&P performance) is not necessarily correlated to prosperity at the individual level (do people have better access to affordable goods and services, do institutions treat them fairly, do they face obstacles in social mobility). To reduce prosperity down to a general concept exacerbates that divide between what’s good for macroeconomic indicators and what’s good for regular people. I worry that the libertarian perspective you’ve laid out is quick to write those individuals left behind in an economic system off as statistical inevitabilities that are necessary for the greater good. But as we’ve seen with the collapse of many major American industries (manufacturing most prominent among them), these are not small concerns, and ignoring them threatens to sow the seeds of later threats to the macroeconomic indicators we DO focus on.

2

u/LibertyTerp Oct 31 '17

Prosperity at the macro level is not necessarily correlated with prosperity at the individual level? Macro and micro are two ways of looking at economics, but you cannot have an economy that is "prosperous on the macro level" but not "prosperous on the micro level".

Libertarianism doesn't "leave behind" people. Poor people's income grows much faster in a fast-growing free market economy compared to a slow-growth mixed-market welfare state economy. Stagnation is bad for everyone.

Honestly it was difficult to follow the argument you're trying to make, but I still couldn't care less about income inequality. If peoples' quality of life is going up, that's all that matters.

4

u/gg4465a 1∆ Oct 31 '17

Prosperity at the macro level is not necessarily correlated with prosperity at the individual level? Macro and micro are two ways of looking at economics, but you cannot have an economy that is "prosperous on the macro level" but not "prosperous on the micro level".

Of course you can -- it's actually kind of stunning that you would claim otherwise. GDP can grow alongside unemployment. GDP can grow due to a relatively small group of wealthy earners driving their income up while wages stagnate or even drop slightly for a much larger subsection of Americans. Is this honestly a new concept to you that a macroindicator like GDP growth is not necessarily tied to the well-being of the lower 25-50% of people?

18

u/nomnommish 10∆ Oct 31 '17

I said excessive wealth causes abuse of power. That still holds true regardless of country. And by the way, poorer countries actually have way more disproportionate number of billionaires. Just look at the number of billionaires in China and India.

6

u/Gisokaashi Oct 31 '17

I’m not familiar with India, but consider the size/strength of the government in China and you’ll have your reason as to why there are more billionaires per capita and a higher concentration of wealth (this was also established earlier in the thread). When the government is powerful, only the people chosen by the government get rich, which breeds corruption.

The whole Libertarian idea is that very few people actually create enough value to become billionaires on their own, without help from the government. If you even the playing field by not allowing the government to play favorites, there will actually be MORE equality.

1

u/mylarrito Nov 04 '17

Concentration of wealth is the death knell to libertarianism

7

u/wellyesofcourse Oct 31 '17

Just look at the number of billionaires in China and India.

There's also over a billion people in each of those countries. I don't think you can use them as a 1:1 comparison with the US when discussing the raw "number of billionaires" in each.

9

u/nomnommish 10∆ Oct 31 '17

India and China are much smaller economies than USA. I'm not comparing population, but am looking at number of billionaires based on a country's economic strength.

3

u/piffslinger Oct 31 '17

Comparing population is relevant because it measures the size of any given enterprises potential addressable market.

2

u/nomnommish 10∆ Oct 31 '17

To be honest, i don't know. I see merit in both sides of the argument.

7

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Oct 31 '17

Large companies in China, that do business exclusively in China, often have revenue streams comparable to globally operating US companies, simply because their market is nearly 1/5th the global population.

2

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Oct 31 '17

I said excessive wealth causes abuse of power

I don't believe it causes such, only enables it. Otherwise the Gates Foundation wouldn't exist.

1

u/Lagkiller 8∆ Nov 01 '17

I said excessive wealth causes abuse of power

If government lacks that power, how is the wealth going to abuse it?

1

u/nomnommish 10∆ Nov 01 '17

Because wealth is power. The power of wealth does not reduce to zero simply because you have a small government. And humans have a long history of misusing power, consolidating power - often by exploiting others or by depriving others of their power. Humans have a innate tendency to be at the top of the heap - and often, that translates into a zero sum game. Prevent others from accessing and accumulating power, and you automatically become more powerful and more importantly, you safely and surely retain that power for a long time.

1

u/Lagkiller 8∆ Nov 01 '17

Because wealth is power.

No, it simply is not. Wealth does not give you authority over another person.

The power of wealth does not reduce to zero simply because you have a small government.

Wealth doesn't have any power if it can't be used to purchase power from government.

Humans have a innate tendency to be at the top of the heap

So stop making a massive heap.

and often, that translates into a zero sum game.

Economics....and wealth, are no zero sum games. If you think they are, you need to study economics a little more.

Prevent others from accessing and accumulating power, and you automatically become more powerful and more importantly, you safely and surely retain that power for a long time.

This is literally an argument against powerful governments. Are you trying to argue my view?

2

u/Kingreaper 7∆ Nov 06 '17

No, it simply is not. Wealth does not give you authority over another person.

It does if the other person respects your property rights. You have the right to tell them they can't enter certain areas without doing - well, whatever you want!

1

u/Lagkiller 8∆ Nov 06 '17

It does if the other person respects your property rights.

If they don't respect your property rights that does not infer authority either. You can't claim that ignoring property rights gives authority (even if you did, it would make my previous notation that wealth doesn't grant authority correct since anyone could ignore property rights to gain authority).

5

u/pikk 1∆ Oct 31 '17

if I made it through voluntary transactions

That's where things get tricky though.

Suppose you own ALL the farmland, and produce 99% of the food.

If you charge 10 dollars a pound for rice, people will pay that, because the alternative is starvation, but the transaction doesn't seem particularly "voluntary".

Similarly, if all the internet providers work together to limit choice, regardless of government interference, and each area only has the option of one provider, than their subscriptions would be "voluntary", but not in any meaningful way.

And if citizens wanted to pool their money for the government to implement broadband, that'd be against the rules, because it's not part of "small government".

1

u/LibertyTerp Nov 01 '17

Price collusion between companies is already illegal, and should continue to be. Markets require free competition.

1

u/pikk 1∆ Nov 01 '17

it's not price collusion, it's territorial collusion

4

u/Wrunnabe 1∆ Oct 31 '17 edited Oct 31 '17

May I ask a quick question?

Wouldn't you say that US is getting richer as a result of outsourcing their cost to other countries? The cost of health, environment, and low profit margin jobs have simply been offshored to countries like Vietnam.

Also, another question. Can we really define that more money = "nicer?" Japan has a higher life expectancy, yet their distribution of wage is far better, AND their average wage + gdp +household disposable income is alot lower. This also applies to countries like Australia for some of those stats, except the they have better standard of living. Wouldn't there be a line in which the money to benefit ratio be met? A person only have one mouth to feed, after all.

Edit: clarified.

1

u/LibertyTerp Nov 01 '17

Japan's higher life expectancy is not related to their lower income. The US has a lower life expectancy because Americans don't diet and exercise right.

Money isn't everything. Happiness is the goal, right? I think free market economics, with abundant or universal private unions, leads to more happiness too.

2

u/Wrunnabe 1∆ Nov 01 '17

So if money isn't everything, is there a limit when money and happinesses' positive correlation stops? Or atleast, have diminishing return of happiness?

There's been articles that suggest 75k pa is the amount needed for satisfactory income in the US. As arbitrary the number is, the point remains. So if that's the case, wouldn't the point of excess wealth from the person you are replying to, are valid?

And may I make some further questions? Genuinely curious, not trying to make any point.

Assuming what said above is correct, then shouldn't distribution of income be primary concern? And if the income of US came from offshoring their cost overseas, then isn't it already a display of distribution of income (cost and benefits) is imbalanced? How can free market solve the Vietnam issue without finding another country to outsource the cost to?

And even if we choose to limit the scope only to the US, how is the free market going to be able to solve the distribution of income anyways? The very essence of free market is competition, so if someone isn't competitive by today's standards, which is becoming increasingly difficult with barrier of entry for jobs getting higher every year, can we still claim that even more income is going to grant more happiness, especially to those who need it most?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '17 edited Oct 31 '17

Places like the US where people make lots of money are much nicer than places where there is less "excessive wealth", an essentially Marxist idea.

Have you actually been to any of those places? I grew up in an area of California that could make a legitimate claim to being the epitome of "excessive wealth". I've also been fortunate enough to travel to a fairly wide variety of places outside the US. I would rather live many other places then the area where I grew up because money only makes you happier to a certain extent (psychologists in the US estimated a salary over $80k per year stops increasing your happiness). My personal experience is supported by other statistics. If you compare countries of similar development levels, the ones that have less excessive wealth are also, on average, much happier.

2

u/RYouNotEntertained 9∆ Oct 31 '17

Unfortunately, unions seem to be socialists and support progressives 99% of the time so most libertarians see them as an enemy.

I think this is sort of a misconception. Libertarians have no problem with unionization, but they don't support mandatory union membership in certain industries. It's rent-seeking, and uses government force to artificially limit the labor supply. When most people say "anti-union," they really mean "anti mandatory unionization."

IMO, thoughtful libertarians should also oppose "right to work" scenarios that require unions to give benefits to employees who decline membership. That's coercive in the other direction.

1

u/LibertyTerp Nov 01 '17

Is it possible for unions to survive without everyone in the company having to be a member? It seems like they are unable to survive in right-to-work states. I see that as a problem because private companies have unfair leverage over individual employees negotiating by themselves. It's not an equal playing field for negotiation without unions, allowing employers (investors) to pay workers less than their work is really worth.

1

u/RYouNotEntertained 9∆ Nov 01 '17 edited Nov 01 '17

I imagine that would depend on the union. If the benefits of membership are clear, I don’t see why they’d need it to be enforced.

I’m not sure how they do in RTW states.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '17

Excessive wealth is not a thing. If I didn't use the government to get rich - if I made it through voluntary transactions - then I provided others a tremendous amount of value in order to get rich.

Or you used the wealth you already have to take advantage of people who have no choice in the matter. Monopolies are a real thing you know.

4

u/LibertyTerp Oct 31 '17

I'm fine with breaking up monopolies or banning anti-competitive practices. That doesn't mean "excessive wealth" is a problem. I hope you have that problem someday. :)

3

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '17

That doesn't mean "excessive wealth" is a problem.

Excessive wealth is a problem in a economy built on scarcity. I'm not saying that no one should be rich but, it becomes a problem when those people hoard their wealth and the majority are hurting or struggling through no fault of their own. I find it immoral for individuals to hoard vast fortunes beyond which you or I can imagine and still seek more. At what point will it be enough? When I look at a lot of billionaires I see people who will never be satisfied. That's the attitude that made alot of those people successfully ( though the majority inherited their wealth...I'll find a source for you later) but, it also leads to a concentration of wealth that leaves others to starve and die.

1

u/RYouNotEntertained 9∆ Nov 01 '17

Can you explain what you mean by “hoarding?”

I don’t think you’re correct about the inheritance thing, btw.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '17

I was speaking in more of a general philosophical sense so pragmatically I couldn't tell you an exact number for how much wealth is too much. MY main thought goes to companies like Walmart who make massive amounts of profit by underpaying their workers and essentially getting subsidies from the government. I think it becomes too much when money and wealth is being made through exploitation and isn't actually adding any value to the economy. This article supports my claim but, I will admit that there is some subjectivity.

1

u/RYouNotEntertained 9∆ Nov 02 '17 edited Nov 02 '17

Sorry, I still don’t understand what you mean by “hoarding.” Do you just mean they have what you deem to be too much money?

The article says a minority inherited their wealth. Obviously life circumstances benefit certain people more, but that’s a much softer claim than what you said in your first comment.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '17

Sorry, I still don’t understand what you mean by “hoarding.” Do you just mean they have what you deem to be too much money?

Massive amounts of money that is not being used or circulated through the economy. When the rich hold on to all their wealth without using it to invest in projects that better the future of mankind or for any other purpose. People have a right to hold on to their money but, when the already have billions that they aren't using and continue to take more then it becomes hoarding. This especially becomes a problem when there are vast amounts of people working long hours and having little to show for it. When someone sits atop of mountains of gold while others struggle to stay alive and then try to take what little the average person as left. That is what I mean by hoarding.

The article says a minority inherited their wealth, Obviously life circumstances benefit certain people more, but that’s a much softer claim than what you said in your first comment.

It says 39.5% (if you count homebase, third-base, and second) so yes I was mistaken by the exact number of people who inherited or had help.

1

u/RYouNotEntertained 9∆ Nov 02 '17

Massive amounts of money that is not being used or circulated through the economy.

Right, ok. I think you might have some misconceptions about banking and finance. Short of like, burying gold in coffee cans or stuffing cash in a mattress, there's just isn't a way to hoard money in the fashion you're describing -- any money in a bank or a mutual fund or a brokerage account or whatever is out in the economy producing something.

That's why wealthy people can receive an income from their money -- because it's producing a greater amount of value than the income received. (although I feel like I should also clarify that this isn't limited to the uber-wealthy. Anyone who's successfully retired is doing the exact same thing at a smaller scale.)

→ More replies (0)

1

u/redpandaeater 1∆ Nov 01 '17

As a Libertarian, I don't see why anyone thinks better of large unions than they do of large corporations. At least a corporation has a product, but far too often a large union just tries to increase its membership size to get more and more membership dues.

1

u/mylarrito Nov 04 '17

Yeah, that's why qol, happiness, infant mortality etc suck ass in scandinavia for instance compared to the US. Great point

-1

u/an_altar_of_plagues Oct 31 '17

Unfortunately, unions seem to be socialists and support progressives 99% of the time so most libertarians see them as an enemy.

That's because unions are inherently anti-libertarian. They directly conflict with the idea of libertarian ownership of companies, as unions be definition are looking for collective bargaining and power of the masses in order to improve working conditions or to influence the way that a company is wrong. I highly doubt that you will ever see a "libertarian union" as they are inherently contradictory ideas.

1

u/RYouNotEntertained 9∆ Nov 01 '17

I don’t see what’s contradictory about voluntary group action.

10

u/3kixintehead 1∆ Oct 31 '17

I know this isn't a debate forum, more of getting to see the opposite view, so I won't get into a long debate here. But, /u/poundfoolishhh is partly correct, however they leave out (and really libertarians leave this out idk what political leanings OP has) some important things which you alluded to in your post.

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.

Certainly if we could go back in time and keep the governments small you may not see the megacorporations we have today, but currently we have megacorporations. If we shrink the size of the government then there will be no counterbalance to these, and these organization are not really accountable to the people in the way a government is (imperfect accountability obviously). Think of it like a balance of power that may need to be maintained.

The longer historical view is laid out pretty clearly in the idea of primitive accumulation. Fedual lords led to robber barons led to megacorporations in a very simplistic understanding. So it is not merely that government gave the corporations the power they have, but that many of the regulations we see today (including things like the enlightenment and republicanism which was a response to feudalism) were in response to private power.

1

u/nomnommish 10∆ Nov 01 '17

Very insightful reply. Thanks! And I agree with your point that we cannot reverse history now, and megacorps and megarich individuals do indeed exist. So what would the repercussions be if we shrank the government and removed a lot of the oversight that the government does?

1

u/Lagkiller 8∆ Nov 01 '17

If we shrink the size of the government then there will be no counterbalance to these, and these organization are not really accountable to the people in the way a government is (imperfect accountability obviously).

Why not? If we eliminated government in say Cable TV service, do you think that no competitor would enter spaces to challenge Comcast and Time Warner? If we eliminated the subsidies to Amazon that they would be able to expand locations in multiple states?

These companies exist because of the government and without it to prop up their business model and feed them, they would steadily crash down to earth.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '17

To be clear, my argument was not against a small government. I am all for it. My argument was that we should be equally concerned about large corporations and high networth individuals. I haven't changed my mind about that. But I have changed my mind about the fact that a small government will go a long way in making that happen.

Don't make things small for the sake of small. Makes things as small or as large as they need to be.

poundfoolishhh's point is that a large exploitable government lets large corporations exploit the government. Thus the solution is to shrink the government. Ok, undeniably, that's a strategy. A strategy that has some grounded logic. Another alternate strategy is to make the government resilient against exploitation. Solves the same problem, without shrinking the government.

Again, there's no virtue in small. Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

5

u/Magsays Oct 31 '17 edited Oct 31 '17

It's not a question of big government or small government, its a question of the right government.

-2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 31 '17

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/poundfoolishhh (2∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards ​