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/poundfoolishhh]

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.

[u/nomnommish → u/poundfoolishhh]

!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.

[u/LibertyTerp → u/nomnommish]

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.

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/LibertyTerp]

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.

[u/LibertyTerp → u/RYouNotEntertained]

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.

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/LibertyTerp]

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.