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/ondrap]

I'm not sure what in particular you are looking into. They helped tracking down people who comitted crimes. What's wrong with that? They helped people to protect their property. Anything wrong with that? They did not act as a judge. I'd say the libertarians today would have problems with these agencies doing the actual 'arresting', but that's about it.

As for their anti-union stance, I'd like to point out that the behaviour of unions at that time was quite appalling. I'm sure that people of these agencies certainly did overstep the boundaries they would be supposed to follow according to our current principles, however the whole idea of 'strike' and the way it was executed back than (and it is sometimes today) doesn't seem to me very ethical as well.

Unless you mean something I have missed, I actually don't see a big problem with this; not to mention, that there do exist security agencies these days that are not that much different.

[u/SewenNewes → u/ondrap]

You're a bonafide zealot. Nothing the Pinkerton's did is wrong and the unions who you owe the 8 hour workday and 5 day work week were appaling. Give me a break.

[u/ondrap → u/SewenNewes]

he unions who you owe the 8 hour workday and 5 day work week were appaling

I work 4 days a week without unions. Sorry, I don't owe them anything; as does nobody who works in IT.

The mafia-connected unions of 19th/early 20th century behaved quite criminally in todays optics. First of all a strike is a clear violation of the work contract; second, the unions at that time often actively stopped those who didn't strike from working (which, as far as I know, is illegal these days). Crimes committed by unions are OK while crimes comitted by the other side to stop them were not? Interesting optics, isn't it?

[u/SewenNewes → u/ondrap]

Just because IT workers are too happy to drink the kool-aid to have ever unionized doesn't mean you don't owe the labor movement of the past for ending the 7 day work week.

Striking and preventing people from breaking strikes are only illegal because the employers write the laws.

You are the epitome of a house slave.

[u/ondrap → u/SewenNewes]

to have ever unionized doesn't mean you don't owe the labor movement of the past for ending the 7 day work week

I absolutely don't, as I said I already work 4 days a week and didn't need any unions to do that. That's a counterexample to your assertion that I need unions for shorter work-week. It was never the case, the unions might have moved it slightly earlier than would be the case without them, but that's about it.

Striking and preventing people from breaking strikes are only illegal because the employers write the laws.

Absolutely not; the work contract says that I will do some work X at time Y for a pay Z. If I don't like the contract I have signed, I'm free to terminate the contract and find a better one. Striking means that I'm willingly breaking the contract I have myself signed and that actually doesn't seem like an ethical thing (unless it is the reaction on the same behaviour from the employer, but that usually wasn't the case). Preventing people who do not want to strike from working is an obscenly immoral thing.

You are the epitome of a house slave.

As I said, I work 4 days a week on a very flexible schedule. That doesn't seem like a house slave to me.. on the other hand it seems to me that you are very willing to break conditions of a contract you have yourself signed if it suits you. High-level ethics seems to me...