5 ms·

I saw a meme recently that was like, Gov: let me do X Libertarian: no way! Big government is bad! Gov: but what if I was a corporation Libertarian: shit, th

I saw a meme recently that was like, Gov: let me do X Libertarian: no way! Big government is bad! Gov: but what if I was a corporation Libertarian: shit, that's all you needed to say Really highlights how some people can think a gov is bad but if a corporation does the same actions, suddenly it's justified. We should be wary of organizations as a whole, regardless of what form they take.

blackoil 4y ago
Govt has a right to violence. You can't choose to stop using govt without moving yourself. They are an organization specifically to serve people. So they need to be held to higher standards.
- busterarm 4y ago
  Not a right to violence. A monopoly on violence. This is why self-defense laws are important.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    No, a right, constrained by legitimacy. The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
- markoman 4y ago
  Its not as if there's a governmental right to spontaneous violence. It's not even a 'right'. It's entwined in the governmental role to enforce laws for the protection of the community and public safety, during which harm may be used to obtain these aims. While this harm is supposed to be used sparingly and judiciously, the human nature of exacting justice can lead to excess and abuse. Unless evidence is presented to the contrary, the enforcing officers are protected with the 'qualified immunity' legal doctrine (aka 'a-few-bad-apples'). Its an unfortunate side effect of a mix of: police culture, training, and popular culture. At least in the George Floyd example, accountability was levied. Corporations act with probably the most impunity of all. They are beneficially and popularly thought of as job providers (until they choose to layoff). When they abuse their function in their yearn for profit, they offer nothing to imprison criminally and can only offer financial compensation -- if they haven't walled off their finances and declared bankruptcy for the guilty self. (Thinking of J&J & the talcum powder case.) In the Purdue Pharma/Sackler case, they paid only what they agreed to pay and many thought they got off easy, since none of Sacklers were even charged criminally. Who has it easier?
fhkhfffjjhf 4y ago
yucky 4y ago
That meme doesn't make sense though. Governments have a monopoly on violence. Corporations do not.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Perhaps in a libertarian utopia with no government, corporations may also have a right to violence just as individuals do.
  - kodyo 4y ago
    Individuals have a right to self defense, not to initiate violence. Government, having granted itself lawmaking power, grants itself a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce its laws.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      > Perhaps in a libertarian utopia with no government
  - yucky 4y ago
    Only if we invent new meanings for words.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  The East India Company did, when ruling India, with its own private armies. See also private militia and police services, e.g., the frequently-renamed Blackwater / Xe / Academi / Constellis. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company)> There are of course a vast number of other examples.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    And just to bring that point home: "More than 1,700 environmental activists murdered in the past decade – report" Killed by hitmen, organised crime groups and their own governments, at least 1,733 land and environmental defenders were murdered between 2012 and 2021, figures from Global Witness show, with Brazil, Colombia, the Philippines, Mexico and Honduras the deadliest countries. <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/29/global-witness-report-1700-activists-murdered-past-decade-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/29/global-w...> Not exclusively corporate, but also not exclusively states. For the most part I find the distinction between these two (and other) forms of power to be largely a red herring. The real issue is power and its accountability, not the specific form it takes. Though at least in theory, a government can be made to answer to those it governs.

blackoil 4y ago

Govt has a right to violence. You can't choose to stop using govt without moving yourself. They are an organization specifically to serve people. So they need to be held to higher standards.

busterarm 4y ago
Not a right to violence. A monopoly on violence. This is why self-defense laws are important.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  No, a right, constrained by legitimacy. The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
markoman 4y ago
Its not as if there's a governmental right to spontaneous violence. It's not even a 'right'. It's entwined in the governmental role to enforce laws for the protection of the community and public safety, during which harm may be used to obtain these aims. While this harm is supposed to be used sparingly and judiciously, the human nature of exacting justice can lead to excess and abuse. Unless evidence is presented to the contrary, the enforcing officers are protected with the 'qualified immunity' legal doctrine (aka 'a-few-bad-apples'). Its an unfortunate side effect of a mix of: police culture, training, and popular culture. At least in the George Floyd example, accountability was levied. Corporations act with probably the most impunity of all. They are beneficially and popularly thought of as job providers (until they choose to layoff). When they abuse their function in their yearn for profit, they offer nothing to imprison criminally and can only offer financial compensation -- if they haven't walled off their finances and declared bankruptcy for the guilty self. (Thinking of J&J & the talcum powder case.) In the Purdue Pharma/Sackler case, they paid only what they agreed to pay and many thought they got off easy, since none of Sacklers were even charged criminally. Who has it easier?

fhkhfffjjhf 4y ago

yucky 4y ago

That meme doesn't make sense though. Governments have a monopoly on violence. Corporations do not.

cercatrova 4y ago
Perhaps in a libertarian utopia with no government, corporations may also have a right to violence just as individuals do.
- kodyo 4y ago
  Individuals have a right to self defense, not to initiate violence. Government, having granted itself lawmaking power, grants itself a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce its laws.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    > Perhaps in a libertarian utopia with no government
- yucky 4y ago
  Only if we invent new meanings for words.
dredmorbius 4y ago
The East India Company did, when ruling India, with its own private armies. See also private militia and police services, e.g., the frequently-renamed Blackwater / Xe / Academi / Constellis. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company)> There are of course a vast number of other examples.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  And just to bring that point home: "More than 1,700 environmental activists murdered in the past decade – report" Killed by hitmen, organised crime groups and their own governments, at least 1,733 land and environmental defenders were murdered between 2012 and 2021, figures from Global Witness show, with Brazil, Colombia, the Philippines, Mexico and Honduras the deadliest countries. <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/29/global-witness-report-1700-activists-murdered-past-decade-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/29/global-w...> Not exclusively corporate, but also not exclusively states. For the most part I find the distinction between these two (and other) forms of power to be largely a red herring. The real issue is power and its accountability, not the specific form it takes. Though at least in theory, a government can be made to answer to those it governs.