4 ms·

So in my younger days I was a full blooded libertarian especially economically, I was 100% against all government regulation. "You don't want lead in your meat,

by hpoe 7y ago

So in my younger days I was a full blooded libertarian especially economically, I was 100% against all government regulation. "You don't want lead in your meat, well then you do your research and stop buying meat with lead in it", I took positions that were pretty extreme by most standards, and I would stay I am probably still a little more out there than most people when it comes to opposing government regulation. My reason for this was rooted in a deep and abiding belief in the supreme importance of individual liberty, "the government should only stop me from doing something that directly hurts somebody otherwise all government power leads to tyranny in one form or another at the end of the day" was the train of my thoughts at the time. I extended this to the economy because I viewed the government regulating business as a violation of my right to conduct my business however I want, "I own the business, I own the assets, it is my money that has been used to build up this business and some useless paper pushing bureaucrat can go shove it all for telling me how to run my business, its my property to use how I want." and I still hold to that to a large extent. However recently I have been reflecting on the situation of powerful corporations recently, especially monopolies (which are more often aided and abated by government involvement than kept in check) and I think that I have discovered a fallacy in my thinking. I agree to live in a society and enjoy the benefits of a society in exchange for choosing to surrender my ability to exercise all possible freedoms I have. Implicit in this agreement however is that if I choose to violate the principles of this agreement by harming someone else for example, I will then be held accountable for that action and whatever comes from it. With corporations that is not the case, when a corporation violates someone's enjoyment of life, liberty, or property there is no real accountability on anyone. There is no one to actually take the fall, they may be fined, but there is no one that is directly accountable, not the CEO, no the Board, the closest thing to an accountable group is the shareholders, which really just means random people's 401ks held under the trust of one of the three big money managers. Ultimately it all comes back to the idea that a corporation has personhood, should a corporation be given personhood, and as extension the same liberties as a person if they do not also share the same accountability. We could say if a corporation breaks the rules that results in someones death then we "kill" the corporation by forcing it into bankruptcy, but that ends up punishing hundreds of innocent people that had nothing to do with the fact that Bill the VP of Product line X, who bribed regulators to sign off on shampoo that causes cancer. I would welcome some pushback or opinions though on that train of thought, it just seems to me as long as no one faces significant personal risk, there should be no one allowed to exercise the same rights as an individual.

salawat 7y ago
You've now rediscovered one of the primary controversies around the concept of the Limited Liability Corporation. Though they were more focused around financial debt/consequences at the time, people were also perturbed at the possibility that the corporation could be found to have done wrong, and seemingly no one would be able to held to account. The way this is worked around today, is that a second criminal case has to be brought against individuals in the corporation. The corporation has no right against self-incrimination; and the ideaisthere should be enough evidence capable of being raked up to hold people accountable. Corporate legal counsel are "held hostage" in the sense that if it is found they refused to comply with legal requests, they can be disbarred, but that doesn't mean that companies won't go out of the way to not record things or surreptitiously lose evidence. At the end of the day, the super power of the corporation is that when it dies no one else goes along with it. On the other hand though, it does take extreme vigilance and will to pierce the corporate veil to prove wrongdoing. It's a tough nut to crack satisfyingly to be sure.
- gowld 7y ago
  What do you mean, "were"? This is still the major problem of corporations, that the let criminal conspiracies limit their liability.
psadauskas 7y ago
I've gone through a similar sort of journey recently myself. I was pretty strongly libertarian, but I've discovered I'm actually vehemently anti-authoritarian, which is why libertarian as the foil to the authoritarian Republicans and Democrats appeals to me. What I've come to realize, though, is that if the Libertarians got their way, we would just be ceding the authority to corporations instead of government. The problem we're facing now is that corporations and the wealthy are already so powerful, our government can't force the corporations to do anything they don't want to, and our vote is manipulated so we can't elect a government that can. My ideal, would be a strong government that represents the interests of the People and defends them from the Elite and powerful. Related to this, its job would be to defend the Free Market from the Capitalists. (Where the "Free Market" is an unobtainable ideal where everybody has perfect information and nobody is coerced, while the "Capitalists" do everything in their power to hide information and coerce the players to their own unequal benefit.) I have no idea how we get there, though, since the more power given to the government to regulate the market makes it a better target to be subverted by the powerful players. Nevermind the fact that the current government is completely bought and paid for by the same corporations, and the People are manipulated by them into arguing over small tribal differences instead of focusing attention on their real enemy. So, I'll continue voting Libertarian, or any other alternative, and die a little inside each time at how little my choice actually matters.

by hpoe 7y ago

salawat 7y ago

You've now rediscovered one of the primary controversies around the concept of the Limited Liability Corporation. Though they were more focused around financial debt/consequences at the time, people were also perturbed at the possibility that the corporation could be found to have done wrong, and seemingly no one would be able to held to account. The way this is worked around today, is that a second criminal case has to be brought against individuals in the corporation. The corporation has no right against self-incrimination; and the ideaisthere should be enough evidence capable of being raked up to hold people accountable. Corporate legal counsel are "held hostage" in the sense that if it is found they refused to comply with legal requests, they can be disbarred, but that doesn't mean that companies won't go out of the way to not record things or surreptitiously lose evidence. At the end of the day, the super power of the corporation is that when it dies no one else goes along with it. On the other hand though, it does take extreme vigilance and will to pierce the corporate veil to prove wrongdoing. It's a tough nut to crack satisfyingly to be sure.

gowld 7y ago
What do you mean, "were"? This is still the major problem of corporations, that the let criminal conspiracies limit their liability.

psadauskas 7y ago

I've gone through a similar sort of journey recently myself. I was pretty strongly libertarian, but I've discovered I'm actually vehemently anti-authoritarian, which is why libertarian as the foil to the authoritarian Republicans and Democrats appeals to me. What I've come to realize, though, is that if the Libertarians got their way, we would just be ceding the authority to corporations instead of government. The problem we're facing now is that corporations and the wealthy are already so powerful, our government can't force the corporations to do anything they don't want to, and our vote is manipulated so we can't elect a government that can. My ideal, would be a strong government that represents the interests of the People and defends them from the Elite and powerful. Related to this, its job would be to defend the Free Market from the Capitalists. (Where the "Free Market" is an unobtainable ideal where everybody has perfect information and nobody is coerced, while the "Capitalists" do everything in their power to hide information and coerce the players to their own unequal benefit.) I have no idea how we get there, though, since the more power given to the government to regulate the market makes it a better target to be subverted by the powerful players. Nevermind the fact that the current government is completely bought and paid for by the same corporations, and the People are manipulated by them into arguing over small tribal differences instead of focusing attention on their real enemy. So, I'll continue voting Libertarian, or any other alternative, and die a little inside each time at how little my choice actually matters.