4 ms·
I feel this is only a partially true, at least in democratic countries governed by rule of law, because the threat is mostly only theoretical. While modern stat
by qwytw 5y ago
I feel this is only a partially true, at least in democratic countries governed by rule of law, because the threat is mostly only theoretical. While modern states are significantly more powerful they are generally governed by more rational actors who (both because of that and better access to information) are much better at estimating the consequences of their actions compared to medieval kings or other autocrats. While the government could go ahead and take all the assets of Apple, Google, Facebook etc. both the government and the people in charge of those corporations know that that's extremely unlikely to happen, especially in a violent way, since the government has very little to gain and a lot to lose by doing that. So while modern corporations are technically utterly defenselessness against violence as you say, arguably this is by choice. Unlike feudal actors corporations have no reason to invest any resources in changing this since they are in a much safer position.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI think I totally agree, and see this as a substantial difference between corporations and feudal lords. They have entirely capitulated on force and are comfortable in this position. You say they only maintain this position by choice, but what choice do they have otherwise? It is hard to imagine Apple, Google, Facebook having any success if they changed their mind and decided to challenge national governments like US or China with direct force.
- ethbr0 5y agoIt has pros on both sides. MAMAA wouldn't have their profit margins if they had to fund a private security force to enforce their contracts and protect their assets. They get the freedom to focus on their business, within the bounds of the law, by ceding violence authority to the government. And in return, the government establishes and enforces those laws.