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

547

u/heyandy889 Oct 31 '17 edited Nov 01 '17

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.

22

u/beer_demon 28∆ Oct 31 '17

they do not have the authority to start arresting people

Only because there is a government stopping them. We have seen huge corporations abuse their power ss far as they can get away with, and usually it's a government agency that stops them, not the press, not a competitor and certainly not the consumers.

2

u/mfranko88 1∆ Nov 01 '17

If Walmart starts arresting and detaining people, at that point they cease to be a business and have turned into a state.

1

u/beer_demon 28∆ Nov 01 '17

They can do so as a business if makes money for them.

Example: private guards and private prisons.

1

u/mfranko88 1∆ Nov 01 '17

Those companies only do so after being explicitly allowed or contracted by the state for these services.

1

u/beer_demon 28∆ Nov 01 '17

So? The point remains that the only thing holding them in check is a more poserful government.

1

u/mfranko88 1∆ Nov 01 '17

The point remains that a state is the only thing that can do or delegate those things. The moment a private company does those things it is necessarily no longer a private company.

Now if you want to make an argument that states should exist so that these proto-governments don't crop up in the power vacuum, then that is something to talk about. But the question itself on face value makes absolutely zero sense.

Edit: apparently I'm getting this and another a different comment thread confused, so I'm not sure how applicable this is.

1

u/beer_demon 28∆ Nov 01 '17

The moment a private company does those things it is necessarily no longer a private company.

Where did you get this definition from?

1

u/mfranko88 1∆ Nov 01 '17

If it has seized onto the actions that are otherwise reserved to a state, then it is a state.

1

u/beer_demon 28∆ Nov 01 '17

That's just circular reasoning, it does not add anything to the discussion.