3 ms·
The only role they see is enforcement of contracts. By Libertarian definition, only governments can be oppressive; anything a corporation does is just the mark
by dsr_ 4y ago
The only role they see is enforcement of contracts.
By Libertarian definition, only governments can be oppressive; anything a corporation does is just the market acting the way it does: at worst, a temporary aberration that will be fixed soon by someone noticing an opportunity to make a profit.
- Eisenstein 4y agoWhat happens when a corporation becomes large enough and powerful enough to enforce its will on the citizens under it? Is it is still 'the market'?
- Ancapistani 4y agoThat definitely happens, and there’s even a word for such an entity: a “government” :)
- Eisenstein 4y agoSo when free markets don't align with the philosophy then we just redefine words until they do?
- Ancapistani 4y agoI was only being trite. From memory, a government is a political entity with three distinguishing characteristics: * it claims a physical territory * it claims a monopoly on the *legitimate* initiation of force * it claims the moral right to levy taxes
- Eisenstein 4y agoI was referring to the free market. If the free market creates a government, then you have redefined free market to mean government when it was created by the market forces.
- aswanson 4y agoWhich is silly, because a corporation, in the end, is nothing more than a group of people cooperating. So a group of people agreeing to murder is just a market imbalance that will be corrected by market forces.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoI think this is a limited view. Most libertarians would probably agree that collective defense, consent management, and management of rivalrous goods are the primary roles of the government, and the squabbling is mostly over what goods are rivalrous (is the environment rivalrous? Some would say yes and point to market based fisheries and nox/sox reductions as big successes, others not so much) and what exactly is consent.