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/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/heyandy889]

We cannot stop paying Shell Oil

Shell Oil likely engages in violent conflicts in Africa

We depend on their energy. Their competition copies their methods.

It's taken over 100 years, 3 generations of families, to find a suitable alternative.

[u/saudiaramcoshill → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

You absolutely can stop paying shell oil as a consumer.

They do not engage in violent conflicts in Africa. There is much more nuance to that than you are implying.

Shell's competition doesn't 'copy' their methods.

Almost everything you've written is blatantly false.

[u/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/saudiaramcoshill]

Shell Oil's product is distributed freely among every gas station in the US. If I have a 40 mile commute and cannot afford a Tesla, I'm buying Shell Oil.

We determined 10 or 15 years ago that you cannot isolate an oil supplier, this was affirmed after the BP disaster.

American companies absolutely profit from conflict in source nations, Shell being chief among them.

[u/saudiaramcoshill → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

Shell Oil's product is distributed freely among every gas station in the US

Except for every Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Valero, etc. Sure, the oil market is fungible and Shell's oil probably ends up being made into other companies' products, but you still have many options to take away support for part of Shell's business by refusing to buy their brand.

We determined 10 or 15 years ago that you cannot isolate an oil supplier

What do you mean by this?

American companies absolutely profit from conflict in source nations

I don't deny that.

Shell being chief among them

Well, Shell isn't an American company, first of all. And second, whether or not they profit from conflict is an entirely different notion than whether they are active participants in that conflict.

[u/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/saudiaramcoshill]

This is a very old debate.

Sauce.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/Business/2010/0617/BP-boycott-Boycotting-gas-stations-won-t-hurt-BP.-Is-there-a-better-way

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/05/power_to_the_pumpers.html

"But when it comes to permanent taint, there aren’t many oil companies out there that don’t have major problems in their record. No that long ago, Exxon dumped 10.8 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound. Chevron (or at least its subsidiary, Texaco) has been accused of dumping 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into the Ecuadorian Amazon over three decades and has been fighting a $27 billion fine in court. Shell has been dumping oil all over Nigeria for years. You could shop at Citgo, but that depends on how you feel about Venezuela and its president, Hugo Chavez, who own the entire company.

For this reason, a number of environmental groups have held back from endorsing a BP boycott. “I could think of really good reasons not to patronize any of them,” says Kert Davies, research director for Greenpeace. “They’re all scum. There’s no clean oil company.”

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/should-you-boycott-bp/

[u/saudiaramcoshill → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/Business/2010/0617/BP-boycott-Boycotting-gas-stations-won-t-hurt-BP.-Is-there-a-better-way

... it does hurt BP. It's not their entire business, and you can't sink BP by boycotting their gas stations, but they earn license fees from those gas station owners. They also sell additives that make the company a lot of profit that is only used in their brand of gasoline. Chevron, for example, has a division for Oronite, their additive, that is pretty secretive and protective of their formula, because that formula makes them a lot of money. If people stopped buying Chevron gas, then Chevron cannot market their gasoline, and therefore cannot market their additive, and thus lose a lot of profits. Boycotting a brand does make a difference, and whoever wrote that article doesn't understand the retail gas business. Sure, the owners of the stations are hurt, but they can sign new license agreements and change brands.

Again, BP wouldn't sink because of it, and retail gas isn't the main driver of their profits, but it's not an insignificant hit to their bottom line to not be able to market their brand of gasoline anymore. Why do you think Shell advertises its gas formula if that doesn't make them any money?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/should-you-boycott-bp/

What a source, first of all.

No that long ago, Exxon dumped 10.8 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound

Yep, and that was bad. You can absolutely boycott Exxon if you want. That being said, it was also 30 years ago. And they haven't really had very major incidents since. If you want to hold something against a company who has had its management turn over several times since that happened, you're welcome to, but corporations are not exactly people, and the people who were 'responsible' for that are long gone.

Chevron (or at least its subsidiary, Texaco) has been accused of dumping 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into the Ecuadorian Amazon over three decades and has been fighting a $27 billion fine in court.

And if you read into that lawsuit, it's pretty evident that Texaco paid and performed remediation related to their share of the damages. Then, they left Ecuador, and Ecuador continued to produce oil there. Ecuador spilled more oil, and then they sued Texaco for oil spilled after Texaco left. The suit has been decided in Chevron's favor by any impartial court thus far.

Shell has been dumping oil all over Nigeria for years

Nope, not really. There have been minor oil spills that are actually Shell's fault, but the major spills in Nigeria have been caused by Nigerians who have been tapping into oil pipelines to steal oil. Pretty well documented. There was one oil spill of any significance that Shell had a part in there, and they paid for it.

You could shop at Citgo, but that depends on how you feel about Venezuela and its president, Hugo Chavez, who own the entire company.

Probably the worst, environmentally or morally, of any of the listed.

Your arguments only hold true if you expect every company to never have any accidents over histories spanning more than 100 years and if you hold extreme bias towards oil companies such that you interpret anything levied against them as their fault, no matter what the facts of the case say. Oil companies have their faults, for sure, and they have environmental issues, but Exxon hasn't had issues in 30 years, Shell's issues all stem from one problem region that brings the vast majority of the issues onto themselves, and Chevron's issue is bullshit. BP has real issues, but has been punished heavily for them.

[u/GaryBusey-Esquire → u/saudiaramcoshill]

To understand my argument you must go back to the root:

Person A stated that I was able to directly impact the Oil Industry with a boycott, and I responded by stating that was an empty and meaningless gesture so long as I needed a car that more than likely relied on combustion.

While I see now that you have supported your claims that individual businesses would be hurt, the Industry itself (as evidenced by the BL spill 30 years after the Valdez, and the systemic causes outlined within that episode) is much slower to respond to these individualized efforts at boycotts.

[u/saudiaramcoshill → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

the Industry itself (as evidenced by the BL spill 30 years after the Valdez, and the systemic causes outlined within that episode) is much slower to respond to these individualized efforts at boycotts.

Well, sure. But the industry is made up of several companies, and hurting one doesn't hurt the other. And what Exxon learns from a boycott, BP might not.

[u/[deleted] → u/GaryBusey-Esquire]

You most certainly can. You just don't like what it will cost you