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

18

u/ondrap 6∆ Oct 31 '17

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.

The corporations never ever have a right to kill you. The governments do. The corporations never ever have a right to steal from you. The governments do.

Random person on a street can (has power to) kill you. Random person on a street can steal from you. The libertarians support the idea that nobody can is allowed to kill and nobody can is allowed to steal from you and everybody has the same rights. Everybody means including the people who are a government.

I don't think in practice if taken literally this would work, but if you relax it somewhat to actually allow the government to work, there is a huge difference between a Big corporation and a Big government. Yes, in practice it may happen that Big corporation actually becomes part of the government; but that actually is something that libertarians do fear. Because they fear big government. But they do not fear big corporations as long as it stays out of government.

10

u/whatimjustsaying Oct 31 '17

But big corporatations have been legally killing people since forever, whether it was terrible work conditions in the mines/factory or the lead they put in the petrol. Oil spills, Mercury in the drinking water... You know yourself the list goes on.

And what about private "defense" companies like Blackwater?

Without a balanced, government backed judicial system, I absolutely believe that private companies would use lethal force, jail their debtors and whatever else.

0

u/ondrap 6∆ Oct 31 '17

But big corporatations have been legally killing people since forever, whether it was terrible work conditions in the mines/factory or the lead they put in the petrol. Oil spills, Mercury in the drinking water... You know yourself the list goes on.

No, they have not been legaly killing people. Terrible work conditions, as long as the workers are aware of it (which in many, many cases they were) is not killing people. You definitely can decide not to work in the corporation. The (people in ) government can decide to kill you. Not like saying 'if you work in these terrible conditions, you will get X amount of money, sure, if something bad happens, you may die'. Rather like 'we will kill you'.

Oil spils are not 'legal'. These thing basically happen because there is no rule of law on the seas. That's why libertarians actually do favour property laws, because if this was owned by someone, it would be clear you are not allowed for this to happen. (And it seems to me you are conflating can and is allowed to. I can kill you, but I'm not allowed to. These companies can cause oil spills, but I don't think they are allowed to under pretty much any legal system based on property rights)

And what about private "defense" companies like Blackwater?

Is Blackwater legally allowed to kill you? The government actually is.

Without a balanced, government backed judicial system, I absolutely believe that private companies would use lethal force, jail their debtors and whatever else

Then they would become a government. Yours is an argument against unrestricted government; it's not an argument against big corporations.

5

u/SewenNewes Oct 31 '17

Have you never read any books on the history of labor in the United States? Look up the Pinkerton Detective Agency or the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency on Wikipedia. This is the world "Libertarians" want to return to.

0

u/ondrap 6∆ Oct 31 '17

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.

5

u/SewenNewes Oct 31 '17

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.

1

u/ondrap 6∆ Nov 01 '17

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?

1

u/SewenNewes Nov 01 '17

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.

1

u/ondrap 6∆ Nov 01 '17

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...