3 ms·

That's exactly my assumption, and it's one of my standing questions for people I encounter who align themselves with libertarianism, and I'm always genuinely cu

by mbrock 9y ago

That's exactly my assumption, and it's one of my standing questions for people I encounter who align themselves with libertarianism, and I'm always genuinely curious. It's because I find it a very interesting and difficult question how to approach the danger of individual liberty leading, through a sequence of steps none of which is by itself illiberal, leads to the establishment of large and powerful corporations that de facto destroy liberty just as much as any state. I agree that big business and big government are becoming conflated, although I guess they have been since the beginning of global capitalism and the founding of the limited liability East India Company in 1600... The distinction between state power and private power seems essential to libertarian ideology, so it's interesting to hear your take.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
"The distinction between state power and private power seems essential to libertarian ideology..." Yes, in the ideal world (hence all of the preferencing I went through). But that's not the case with the big internet players. It's a spectrum. I'd feel completely differently about the local lemonade stand. Systems gain cruft over time. I'd make the same argument about governments. A lot of them start off great, but through a series of logical and altruistic measures, never wanting to harm folks or create a dystopia -- end up doing so. I think the saddest thing about both the monopoly and big government discussions is that in many cases, there are no bad guys. There's just organizational drift over time. Doesn't make it any better -- and in fact understanding can be really tough for a lot of folks. But if we really want to fix things we need to be honest with ourselves about both where we are and how we got here. Sloganeering and partisanship are not conducive to fixing things. ADD: Good point about the EIC. When libertarians talk about the free market, whether they realize/admit it or not, it's small-scale markets, people trading apples 2-for-a-dollar. Humans are natural traders. The minute a person gets really good at trading, he automatically wants to start creating structures to protect both the traders and his own interests. He conflates the two. The system to "protect" people? That's government. It's impossible to have a government without people trading something for something inside of it, and based on the items traded and the number of players, the government corrupts more or less quickly. I like libertarianism because it's an ideal. We'll never create a world market of people selling apples 2-for-a-dollar, and that's okay. I still have the tools to reason about GE or Facebook. There is a distinction between private and state power, and it's important. But they become mixed together at extremely small scales -- much more so at larger ones. You don't get to be a Toyota without a government somewhere covering your back. With the internet companies, we are watching in real time how starting off on your own with a great product people love quickly leads to either becoming deeply entangled in governments or losing your market share.

by mbrock 9y ago

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

"The distinction between state power and private power seems essential to libertarian ideology..." Yes, in the ideal world (hence all of the preferencing I went through). But that's not the case with the big internet players. It's a spectrum. I'd feel completely differently about the local lemonade stand. Systems gain cruft over time. I'd make the same argument about governments. A lot of them start off great, but through a series of logical and altruistic measures, never wanting to harm folks or create a dystopia -- end up doing so. I think the saddest thing about both the monopoly and big government discussions is that in many cases, there are no bad guys. There's just organizational drift over time. Doesn't make it any better -- and in fact understanding can be really tough for a lot of folks. But if we really want to fix things we need to be honest with ourselves about both where we are and how we got here. Sloganeering and partisanship are not conducive to fixing things. ADD: Good point about the EIC. When libertarians talk about the free market, whether they realize/admit it or not, it's small-scale markets, people trading apples 2-for-a-dollar. Humans are natural traders. The minute a person gets really good at trading, he automatically wants to start creating structures to protect both the traders and his own interests. He conflates the two. The system to "protect" people? That's government. It's impossible to have a government without people trading something for something inside of it, and based on the items traded and the number of players, the government corrupts more or less quickly. I like libertarianism because it's an ideal. We'll never create a world market of people selling apples 2-for-a-dollar, and that's okay. I still have the tools to reason about GE or Facebook. There is a distinction between private and state power, and it's important. But they become mixed together at extremely small scales -- much more so at larger ones. You don't get to be a Toyota without a government somewhere covering your back. With the internet companies, we are watching in real time how starting off on your own with a great product people love quickly leads to either becoming deeply entangled in governments or losing your market share.