3 ms·

hahah yes, the old "you believe in smaller government so you must want unlimited corporate power" argument. Not sure there is an easier way to illustrate a fun

hahah yes, the old "you believe in smaller government so you must want unlimited corporate power" argument. Not sure there is an easier way to illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the libertarian position.

jandrese 9y ago
If government is limited, what is the check on corporate power? What is going to fill that void? The market? The market only cares about money. There is no magical fairy that will make profit oriented enterprises suddenly care about non-profit objectives. The old "people won't buy stuff from companies that are dicking them over or killing the envionrment", always conveniently ignores the fact that if one company is behaving badly but getting better profits (exploiting their workers for short term gain, dumping toxic waste into the rivers, etc...), they will ultimately consume any well behaved competitors. Unfettered markets are pure dog eat dog territory, and frivolities like environmental protection and human rights do not survive. We know what unregulated markets look like, they are cities filled with factories churning out toxic smoke, hospitals full of terminal cancer cases, people dying on the street, and everything else you read about in the Industrial Age. Or go to any factory city in China. They're making tons of shareholder profit and they're dying at the same time. Libertarians are the worst at not fully thinking through the ramifications of their positions.
- djschnei 9y ago
  Government IS the check on corporate power! You are the one who is misunderstood. As a libertarian, I believe governments are vital to a civil society (never said I was an anarchist). I believe governments SHOULD have (granted to it by the people who it represents) pretty ultimate powers in dealing with bad-actors. However, those powers should only be used in very specific situations; Does person A's actions infringe on person B's rights. Spewing toxic smoke into the air and making me sick is an act of physical violence towards me; the government should step in. The government picking winners and losers in a marketplace based on special interests and who can lobby more effectively doesn't protect my rights - it infringes on them. All people, whether they work for a massive corporation or within the government, make most of their decisions based on personal self interest. Give corporate entities unfettered power, they will stomp on people. Give government unfettered power, they will stomp on people. It's all about channeling the individual's drive to improve their own life towards the best interest of the collective. A free-market and a government whose sole purpose it is to protect individual rights, is the best way to do it. I don't believe in unlimited corporate power because people are fallible. I don't believe in unlimited government power because people are fallible.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    What kind of check on corporate power can a government be when it is reduced to only national defense and maybe police? I don't run into many libertarians that argue that we should keep the corporate regulations. I think you may not be in line with mainstream libertarians.
    - djschnei 9y ago
      I am 100% in line with mainstream libertarians. I don't think we should keep "corporate" regulations. I think the government should wield its power to prevent one person from infringing on another person's rights, whether they work in government or a corporation. Nothing more, nothing less. Fun fact: the government and the largest corporations are made up of exactly the same thing - people looking out for their self interests. There is nothing more sinister or more benevolent about either of them (in composition).
      - jandrese 9y ago
        That makes no sense. The government should prevent bad things from happening, but they won't have any framework or enforcement mechanisms for doing so. What do you think corporate (and other) regulations are for? How do you think they are enforced? You want the government to stop people from dumping poison in a river and killing people and animals hundreds of miles downstream, and do it without an EPA or environmental regulation, not even a definition of what "poison" is, much less written penalties for putting it in the environment uncontrolled. If you don't agree on something and write it down you'll be stuck arguing the details for years and years every time there is a dispute. "You are poisoning the water and killing people!" "Nope, this stuff isn't that dangerous, it must be one of the hundreds of other factories dumping in this river." "We know your stuff is dangerous!" "I don't see that anywhere on here. I say it's safe. You want to spend the next 10 years in court arguing over this? Because I will, and all of your plantiffs will be dead before the case is over and I'll win by default."
        djschnei 9y ago

jandrese 9y ago

If government is limited, what is the check on corporate power? What is going to fill that void? The market? The market only cares about money. There is no magical fairy that will make profit oriented enterprises suddenly care about non-profit objectives. The old "people won't buy stuff from companies that are dicking them over or killing the envionrment", always conveniently ignores the fact that if one company is behaving badly but getting better profits (exploiting their workers for short term gain, dumping toxic waste into the rivers, etc...), they will ultimately consume any well behaved competitors. Unfettered markets are pure dog eat dog territory, and frivolities like environmental protection and human rights do not survive. We know what unregulated markets look like, they are cities filled with factories churning out toxic smoke, hospitals full of terminal cancer cases, people dying on the street, and everything else you read about in the Industrial Age. Or go to any factory city in China. They're making tons of shareholder profit and they're dying at the same time. Libertarians are the worst at not fully thinking through the ramifications of their positions.

djschnei 9y ago
Government IS the check on corporate power! You are the one who is misunderstood. As a libertarian, I believe governments are vital to a civil society (never said I was an anarchist). I believe governments SHOULD have (granted to it by the people who it represents) pretty ultimate powers in dealing with bad-actors. However, those powers should only be used in very specific situations; Does person A's actions infringe on person B's rights. Spewing toxic smoke into the air and making me sick is an act of physical violence towards me; the government should step in. The government picking winners and losers in a marketplace based on special interests and who can lobby more effectively doesn't protect my rights - it infringes on them. All people, whether they work for a massive corporation or within the government, make most of their decisions based on personal self interest. Give corporate entities unfettered power, they will stomp on people. Give government unfettered power, they will stomp on people. It's all about channeling the individual's drive to improve their own life towards the best interest of the collective. A free-market and a government whose sole purpose it is to protect individual rights, is the best way to do it. I don't believe in unlimited corporate power because people are fallible. I don't believe in unlimited government power because people are fallible.
- jandrese 9y ago
  What kind of check on corporate power can a government be when it is reduced to only national defense and maybe police? I don't run into many libertarians that argue that we should keep the corporate regulations. I think you may not be in line with mainstream libertarians.
  - djschnei 9y ago
    I am 100% in line with mainstream libertarians. I don't think we should keep "corporate" regulations. I think the government should wield its power to prevent one person from infringing on another person's rights, whether they work in government or a corporation. Nothing more, nothing less. Fun fact: the government and the largest corporations are made up of exactly the same thing - people looking out for their self interests. There is nothing more sinister or more benevolent about either of them (in composition).
    - jandrese 9y ago
      That makes no sense. The government should prevent bad things from happening, but they won't have any framework or enforcement mechanisms for doing so. What do you think corporate (and other) regulations are for? How do you think they are enforced? You want the government to stop people from dumping poison in a river and killing people and animals hundreds of miles downstream, and do it without an EPA or environmental regulation, not even a definition of what "poison" is, much less written penalties for putting it in the environment uncontrolled. If you don't agree on something and write it down you'll be stuck arguing the details for years and years every time there is a dispute. "You are poisoning the water and killing people!" "Nope, this stuff isn't that dangerous, it must be one of the hundreds of other factories dumping in this river." "We know your stuff is dangerous!" "I don't see that anywhere on here. I say it's safe. You want to spend the next 10 years in court arguing over this? Because I will, and all of your plantiffs will be dead before the case is over and I'll win by default."
      - djschnei 9y ago