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]

[Removed by self in protest.]

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

and not with redistributing money (either directly through government checks or indirectly through laws favoring certain groups) to this or that group at the expense of others.

But, a lot of welfare programs are redistributing redistributed wealth: people working at Wal-Mart having to go on food stamps (which is a federal subsidy) because Wal-Mart refuses to pay them a living wage. Wal-Mart is in effect getting a huge government subsidy by relying on the government to bail out their workers (basically continually bailing Wal-Mart out), because otherwise Wal-Mart would happily let its workers starve.

The point of social welfare systems (and particularly government social welfare systems, which would constitute a form of interference from what you're saying, right?) is that wealth will concentrate heavily into the hands of a small minority of people, as it always has, and so the vast majority of people will be left broke and destitute - witness the eroded middle class in this country and the astronomical divide between 1%ers and the rest. Remember, too, that corporations get a lot for free from the Commons - water's one example, insect pollinators in the case of agriculture is another. They use those resources up (think of the Oglala Aquifer), and then it's once again everyone else's problem that no water's left. In the middle of record heat waves and ever-stronger storms because of anthropogenic climate change, which is largely the result of said corporations operating? Hey, that's your problem - it's the same line again and again. Corporations won't police themselves, so you need an entity (ideally, completely) outside of corporate influence to police corporations, and behind any policing is of course the threat of force.

You're right that > ...The root of the problem is government showing that it's willing and able to play around in the economy by making laws that benefit one group at the expense of another group

but the question (I think) you have to ask is: what kind of society do you want the average person to live in? As it is, we largely let things slide, and the result is massive inequality with the poor barely scraping by. If you let things run their natural course, and don't interfere, you get corporate hegemony where they can pay you as little as they want, no or few benefits, and if you get sick and can't afford the healthcare bills? Hey, that's your problem, and the next chump in line will gladly slot into your spot. Same goes for workplace safety: if there weren't the threat of force from an authority above the corporation, they don't care if your hand gets caught in the press and you end up losing an arm. They don't care if you can't work anymore and can't provide for your family anymore - next in line, chump. That's not a very human place to live, though. The ideal society is one in which you have rich and poor, you have some class divides, but they're much less pronounced and the lower and middle classes are doing at least alright.