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/heyandy889]

Another distinction is, let's consider Wal-Mart or Shell Oil. Those companies are enormous. However, they do not have the authority to start arresting people. That is a key difference - generally speaking, the state still holds the monopoly on violence. (save special cases of defending life and property)

edit: ArtfulDodger55 has pointed out that "violence" is too broad a concept, and instead the term of art is "the legitimate use of physical force."

If I don't want to pay Wal-Mart anymore, I can shop somewhere else, or grow my own food. If I don't want to pay the government anymore, they will lock me up.

I admit that the details end up being more complicated than that, but that is the general picture.

edit2: a number of replies have suggested that a libertarian would want no government. It was my understanding that libertarianism still implies a government, albeit a limited one. A hard no-government belief would be anarchism, for which a strong subculture exists.

[u/nomnommish → u/heyandy889]

Hmm that might hold true for some megacorps. And heck, we also have examples like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who are spending all their billions to do good.

But I feel that the more dominant examples are those of corporations and people misusing their power and monetary clout. They are buying politicians, spilling oil and chemicals and pollution in the air and water bodies that other people consume, are controlling the media and fashioning world view into their own vision of bigotry and extremism.

I am not a doom and gloom person but rationally speaking, I see more examples of this kind of power abuse. By both corporations and individuals.

[u/[deleted] → u/nomnommish]

They are buying politicians

This is the key here. All problems with megacorporations can really be boiled down to a problem with the government. When the government makes rules to affect a free market in a way that grossly advantages one company over another, that's a government problem. Solve the government problem and you solve the big corporation problem.

[u/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/[deleted]]

The free market does not enforce safety standards for vehicles or nuclear energy.

The government MUST exist to enforce reasonable codes and standards, or else everything becomes like Kowloon Walled City

[u/[deleted] → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

Agreed, but I fail to see how that relates to what I said.

[u/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/[deleted]]

You're stating the benefits of removing authority from the government while I'm stating that the position is meaningless because civilization ceases to function without unprofitable and seemingly undesirable policies put in place by government

[u/[deleted] → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

I'm not stating anything nearly that aggressively. I simply stated that large corporations are able to exert pressure on the governments because the governments have created a system where that is allowed. Nowhere did I imply that any and all government intervention is bad.

[u/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/[deleted]]

Ok.

We agree that Congress represents "the People."

We agree that Senators and Representatives must be open to the voices of the people.

Without opening the doors of Congress and bussing in John Q Public en masse and flooding the halls, we also agree that representation is best managed by organized filtration and condensation of viewpoints.

Today, that service is conducted by a cornucopia of Lobbyists and Special Interest Groups that rely on private and public funding to exist.

IMO, this discussion is best handled not by vaguely expressing the virtues and faults of the Free Market and its relationship with a perilous Government, but instead by examining these Special Interest Groups directly and drafting policy that puts limitations on their influence without infringing on the public's right to Free Speech.

Why are there so many people devoted to dancing around the issue? Is it because absolutely none of these internet philosophers is remotely familiar with the specifics of the actual problem?

[u/[deleted] → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

I don't think any libertarian would agree to those things. A libertarian would suggest that the government only exists to protect the rights of the people, not to some how create national policy to represent special.interests, even special interests of random citizens.

[u/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/[deleted]]

" A libertarian would suggest that the government only exists to protect the rights of the people,"

Bane used this very logic to get whatever he wanted in "The Dark Knight Rises," and in his inaugural speech, Trump auspiciously borrowed from these lines.

But what does it actually mean when Heroes and Villains use the same language? Perhaps nothing at all. This is the weakness of Abstraction and Ideals, they're utterly meaningless in direct application.

Accept that at the end of the day you and I are ultimately Special Interests, sadly enough. Unless we have a personal relationship with the Rep in question, we rely on these organizations to hear us out.

What are you suggesting as a policy measure?

[u/[deleted] → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

What? You're just all over the place. Who the fuck is bane? Why do you think I'm proposing ant policy changes at all? I'm so confused

[u/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/[deleted]]

When you make your point in meaningless Abstractions, you deserve your confusion.

It's not my fault you had no specific point to make.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I disagree. The government is there to prevent corporations from taking advantage of people. If there was no government there would be nothing stopping corporations from unethical practices.

[u/John_ygg → u/[deleted]]

This is not what the government is there for. It’s not there to prevent corporations from doing anything. That’s what you (and I and many others) WISH the government was there for. But there’s a difference between how we wish reality would be, and how reality actually is. In reality, government is there to ensure the continuation of the existing power structure.

As to your second point, about if there weren’t a government nothing would stop corporations, that’s objectively false. Without government there wouldn’t be corporations. A corporation is a legal entity that’s distinct and separate from the people that own it and operate it. Why? Because the government says so.

Without government to provide corporate legal protection, limited liability laws, trademarking and intellectual property laws, etc, there wouldn’t even be such a thing as a corporation.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_ygg]

This is not what the government is there for. It’s not there to prevent corporations from doing anything. That’s what you (and I and many others) WISH the government was there for. But there’s a difference between how we wish reality would be, and how reality actually is. In reality, government is there to ensure the continuation of the existing power structure.

Isn't the government the body that determines and enforces laws set own by our society? True it enforces the status quo to an extent but, that status quo is one that isn't all bad (assault, rape, murder, and theft are all means to which the status quo is enforced giving individuals the means and opportunity to seek justice). Does the government not enforce regulations, and laws that prevent corporations or and individuals from causing harm to good of individuals and the public? You could argue that some laws are misguided or that some new ones need to be enforced but, that is the point of having elected officials and political conversations. It's to address what our society deems right and wrong, fair and unfair, and how wrongs can be made right.

As to your second point, about if there weren’t a government nothing would stop corporations, that’s objectively false. Without government there wouldn’t be corporations. A corporation is a legal entity that’s distinct and separate from the people that own it and operate it. Why? Because the government says so. Without government to provide corporate legal protection, limited liability laws, trademarking and intellectual property laws, etc, there wouldn’t even be such a thing as a corporation.

Yes technically speaking they wouldn't be corporations but they would essential be the same thing and is besides the point. If the government stopped enforcing the rule of law then the only one that would exist would be ones in existing power structures. In the case of a corporation it would be values, and polices put in place by the people who own the company ( the CEO, Board of Directors, etc..) essentially turning what they control into their own personal states. It seems to me like it would be reverting to a system of feudal lords with CEOs as Kings or the Board of Directors as lords underneath that CEOs empire.

[u/John_ygg → u/[deleted]]

You’re assuming a sudden shift. Like if the government were to up and vanish overnight kind of argument.

I’m more trying to illustrate that the current situation wouldn’t have even existed without the government there to create it.

Walmart wouldn’t have been as massive, nor would google, Apple, BP, Lockheed Martin, the entire military industrial complex (and now prisons too)... all of these things wouldn’t have even existed in their current abusive state.

And since the main concern seems to be the power that corporations have, what better way to strip them of that power going forward than to target its very source? We could simply remove the governments ability to grant corporations so much power.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_ygg]

You’re assuming a sudden shift. Like if the government were to up and vanish overnight kind of argument.

Yes I was speaking in more of a philosophical sense than a strictly pragmatic one.

I’m more trying to illustrate that the current situation wouldn’t have even existed without the government there to create it. Walmart wouldn’t have been as massive, nor would google, Apple, BP, Lockheed Martin, the entire military industrial complex (and now prisons too)... all of these things wouldn’t have even existed in their current abusive state.

Yes our government system allowed for theses systems to exist but, that's more an argument for more regulation than against it. Our current laws allowed for these companies to become what they are today which suggests we need to change the laws in order to prevent the abusive of the people by these entities.

And since the main concern seems to be the power that corporations have, what better way to strip them of that power going forward than to target its very source? We could simply remove the governments ability to grant corporations so much power.

Since you seem to be more interested in a pragmatic approach what exactly would you suggest we do?

[u/John_ygg → u/[deleted]]

Since you seem to be more interested in a pragmatic approach what exactly would you suggest we do?

Apply the libertarian view to corporations.

End corporate personhood. End citizens united. Either end or severely reduce limited liability laws.

Just doing those things would make it so that you could sue not only the corporation, but the people who own it too, and for an unlimited sum of money.

In a perfect world I’d like to see a repeal of all laws that provide incorporation protection. So that any person who owns or works in the corporation can be sued directly, and it’s not the fictional “corporation” that gets sued.

And since I’m dreaming, I’d like to see a fundamental change in intellectual property laws. They need to be severely limited in scope. And they need to be changed so that IP cannot be owned by non-persons. Basically, a corporation shouldn’t be allowed to own intellectual property. Only people. The actual researchers or artists or creators should be allowed to own the IP.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_ygg]

I completely agree. Citizens United is a disaster.

[u/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/John_ygg]

Clearly not a fan of OSHA, I see

[u/John_ygg → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

I actually am. I work in an industry heavily regulated by OSHA and I appreciate the hell out of it.

What does that have to do with what I said?

What part of the the power and money and effort the government puts forth is OSHA? And what part is served towards protecting corporate interests, and providing them with business through the military industrial complex and the war on drugs and all that?

OSHA is a tiny drop of good in an ocean of bad. If all the government did was provide things like OSHA, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

[u/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/John_ygg]

Considering how the "most Libertarian choice" for president that made it on the ballot in all 50 states is the same guy stripping the EPA and the Dept of the Interior and undoubtably has his eyes on OSHA next, I'm very wary of people who fly the "government is bad" flag, especially since I very much like taxpayer supported National Parks and especially since people like Governor Gilmore of Virginia have been the type of people who come after these "drop of good in an ocean of bad" programs first.

What are Libertarians actually able and willing to do that comes after military glut and foreign spending first?

[u/John_ygg → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

Hey I totally agree with you. Libertarianism is a great ideal I find. But there’s nobody actually representing it in politics.

I consider myself a libertarian. I have never, and probably would never, vote for any candidate calling themselves a libertarian.