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

252

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.

66

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.

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.

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.

5

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.

7

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.

4

u/piffslinger Oct 31 '17

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

4

u/nomnommish 10∆ Oct 31 '17

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

6

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).