4 ms·

It’s not libertarian to value corporate rights above those of the individual citizen. Hell, when companies become more powerful than actual governments, the le

by moksly 7y ago

It’s not libertarian to value corporate rights above those of the individual citizen. Hell, when companies become more powerful than actual governments, the least libertarian thing you could possible do, is to give their kingdoms free reign.

oliverx0 7y ago
It is not one above the other. I can understand if my point of views are not common or if you disagree. But in order to have a healthier debate, perhaps you could specifically address my points? The US does not (usually) interfere as much as Europe into business affairs. I don't think that automatically translate into "valuing corporate rights above those of individual citizens"
atq2119 7y ago
Depends on what you mean by "libertarian". There's a vocal group of "libertarians", the ones that veer towards anarcho-capitalism, whose stance is basically that state power is bad but economic power is just fine. Those folks may not explicitly say that they want corporate rights to be above those of individual citizens, but the practical consequence of their worldview is that they will be (to an even greater extent than they already are today), because corporations have much greater economic power than individuals. "Libertarian" used to be a concept that was purely about individual freedom, but it has been twisted to a large extent into something that is quite opposed to individual freedom in practice.
- oliverx0 7y ago
  Fair enough, let me clarify: When an individual engages freely in a business transaction or relationship with a corporation, I think that government intervention should be minimal. A clear example of this is employment-at-will. This doctrine only exists in the US. Everywhere else, governments step in and determine that you can not fire someone without cause. Competition is what makes this point of view OK, without it, it does become a monopoly and problematic.
  - mnm1 7y ago
    I would say an individual never engages freely in a working relationship unless that individual is already so rich that he doesn't need to work. Otherwise it's by necessity that people have to get jobs as we do not have the ability to reject the social contract and live off the land or anything like that (legally or practically). At will employment is a misnomer. There's nothing at will about most employment regardless of what we call it.

by moksly 7y ago

oliverx0 7y ago

It is not one above the other. I can understand if my point of views are not common or if you disagree. But in order to have a healthier debate, perhaps you could specifically address my points? The US does not (usually) interfere as much as Europe into business affairs. I don't think that automatically translate into "valuing corporate rights above those of individual citizens"

atq2119 7y ago

Depends on what you mean by "libertarian". There's a vocal group of "libertarians", the ones that veer towards anarcho-capitalism, whose stance is basically that state power is bad but economic power is just fine. Those folks may not explicitly say that they want corporate rights to be above those of individual citizens, but the practical consequence of their worldview is that they will be (to an even greater extent than they already are today), because corporations have much greater economic power than individuals. "Libertarian" used to be a concept that was purely about individual freedom, but it has been twisted to a large extent into something that is quite opposed to individual freedom in practice.

oliverx0 7y ago
Fair enough, let me clarify: When an individual engages freely in a business transaction or relationship with a corporation, I think that government intervention should be minimal. A clear example of this is employment-at-will. This doctrine only exists in the US. Everywhere else, governments step in and determine that you can not fire someone without cause. Competition is what makes this point of view OK, without it, it does become a monopoly and problematic.
- mnm1 7y ago
  I would say an individual never engages freely in a working relationship unless that individual is already so rich that he doesn't need to work. Otherwise it's by necessity that people have to get jobs as we do not have the ability to reject the social contract and live off the land or anything like that (legally or practically). At will employment is a misnomer. There's nothing at will about most employment regardless of what we call it.