4 ms·

Corporations are governments. At some point you say "we want this operation to be run via rules" so you make some rules and form a government that runs under th

by somat 3y ago

Corporations are governments. At some point you say "we want this operation to be run via rules" so you make some rules and form a government that runs under those rules. You usually will need a license to form a sub government from whatever larger government you will be operating under. Related, think how a town incorporates in order to form their own local government.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
This analogy breaks down rather quickly. The government is a government because it has a monopoly on violence to enforce its rules. Even your tiny little village can constitute a police force that can arrest, subjugate, and in the face of extreme resistance, kill. No corporation is authorized to do that in any circumstances at all. While I certainly invite criticism of these entities, bad criticism benefits them.
- namaria 3y ago
  >The government is a government because it has a monopoly on violence to enforce its rules. That's the definition of State. Governments are just administrative bodies.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    These words of yours are synonyms. If there were a state without any government (some lawless anarchy), the idea that the "state" could still have a monopoly on violence is laughably asinine. You must be from some European country where "government" means something like "Congressional session" or whatever. I have little interest in wading through all that semantic nonsense.
    - namaria 3y ago
      The separation is useful. Corporations are governed. There's no debate to be won, we're talking about understanding society better. Put your guard down, man...
- somat 3y ago
  Corporations absolutely are able to use violence to enforce their rules, although just like public governments they have to be fairly large before they can start getting away with it. think security guards, railroad cops. etc. And it is not an analogy, a corporation is not like a government, it is a government. Often what we think of a corporation is a for profit endeavor(but it does not have to be) but not all for profit endeavors are corporations. So what differentiates a corporation from other for profit endeavors. A corporation has license to exists and operate under it's under it's rules instead of existing and operating under a single person. a government.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  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. 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.

by somat 3y ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

This analogy breaks down rather quickly. The government is a government because it has a monopoly on violence to enforce its rules. Even your tiny little village can constitute a police force that can arrest, subjugate, and in the face of extreme resistance, kill. No corporation is authorized to do that in any circumstances at all. While I certainly invite criticism of these entities, bad criticism benefits them.

namaria 3y ago
>The government is a government because it has a monopoly on violence to enforce its rules. That's the definition of State. Governments are just administrative bodies.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  These words of yours are synonyms. If there were a state without any government (some lawless anarchy), the idea that the "state" could still have a monopoly on violence is laughably asinine. You must be from some European country where "government" means something like "Congressional session" or whatever. I have little interest in wading through all that semantic nonsense.
  - namaria 3y ago
    The separation is useful. Corporations are governed. There's no debate to be won, we're talking about understanding society better. Put your guard down, man...
somat 3y ago
Corporations absolutely are able to use violence to enforce their rules, although just like public governments they have to be fairly large before they can start getting away with it. think security guards, railroad cops. etc. And it is not an analogy, a corporation is not like a government, it is a government. Often what we think of a corporation is a for profit endeavor(but it does not have to be) but not all for profit endeavors are corporations. So what differentiates a corporation from other for profit endeavors. A corporation has license to exists and operate under it's under it's rules instead of existing and operating under a single person. a government.
dredmorbius 3y ago
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. 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.