4 ms·

Interesting take. Libertarians, who are usually the ones most preoccupied with finding tyranny in any government action (or any government at all), tend to be b

Interesting take. Libertarians, who are usually the ones most preoccupied with finding tyranny in any government action (or any government at all), tend to be big fans of negative rights as opposed to positive rights. But that's probably because they're coming from a different ideological outlook.

kaba0 2y ago
Libertarians are not known for their strong logical arguments.
mindslight 2y ago
Yes, "it's just another system of control". I used to partial to big-L Libertarianism. I'm not any more, mostly due to this flaw in the framing and the resulting conclusions. It essentially blesses corporations' extraconstitutional governing, by simply defining away the coercion (plus a healthy dose of ignoring that a "corporation" is itself a government creation). Then offers up individualist fundamentalism to cope with its glaring failings. (These days I identify as small-l "libertarian" because I still believe individual freedom is paramount. And it still puts me in the appropriate "other-weird" bucket with most people, rather than their friendly-kool-aid or other-enemy buckets).
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  I think that might fit into left-libertarianism and/or individualist libertarianism, perhaps.
- lifeisstillgood 2y ago
  Oh! I get it (I think) Corporations can be set up that do most of the governing, and do it the way “they” want. I assume Facebook is the poster boy here, something something Content moderation. I mean yes - kind of. My take is that most corporations are more interested in making a quick buck than in doing any governing (especially the hard stuff). Governing well is really really hard ( which is why it is so rare!). Outsourcing it even to your captured corporations just makes the whole thing harder surely? I am heartened by Zuckerberg standing up in congress and saying “well you tell me what is and is not allowed” Corporations either don’t want to govern (see above) or they already are the government (see Putin’s Russia) so it’s only extra constitutional if you think the constitution is worth more than the ink. I think despite everything we have shared belief that our western constitutions matter - even Zuckerberg
  - mindslight 2y ago
    I avoided concrete examples because they tend to bring people out of the woodwork who see the goals of that specific exercise of power as a good thing, and then argue against the general criticism. I'd say that pigeonholing corporations as only interested in a "quick buck" is a fallacy. You're essentially focusing on one of their imperatives to write off concerns about another. From what I see corporations very much have an imperative to govern - in the small sense of controlling others, beyond what would otherwise be a disinterested smallest transactional scope. To run with your example, Facebook does not merely present a disinterested linear feed of posts, allow for users setting their own prioritization criteria, nor design their systems to be content-oblivious conduits. Rather Facebook inserts itself into users' relationships in ways that "drive engagement", and proactively polices users' content - either preemptively and summarily enforcing what Facebook perceives as the law, and even differing from the law for internal ideological or public relations purposes. That's essentially small scale governance, with the ability to opt out being directly tied to one's dependence on Facebook. If you're just using it to keep in touch with family, you can do that in other ways. If it's a critical part of promoting your local business, running afoul of its regulations is likely more of a critical problem than say failing a health department inspection.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > a "corporation" is itself a government creation Not necessarily. Today corporations are required to be created and maintained according to government procedures, but that wasn't always the case. To a small-l libertarian, a "corporation" is simply an obvious way for a group of people with a common goal to simplify the process of working towards that goal while interacting with the rest of the world, by creating a single virtual entity that can do things like be a party to contracts, participate in trades, etc., rather than requiring every single person working towards the goal to individually be a party to each such interaction. Of course, to a small-l libertarian, such corporations are not empowered to do anything their individual members could not do, and they don't change the limitations of the non-aggression principle. Which already leaves out much that actual corporations do in today's world.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    My characterization is primarily referring to the liability shield aspect, which is a creation of government policy. If the owners of a corporation were jointly and severely liable for the actions and debts of the corporation, I'd accept the explanation that it's just a way for people to come together to achieve a common goal. But that liability shield allows for a level of scaled-up investor non-involvement that creates significant qualitative differences in the resulting behavior.
    - johngladtj 2y ago
      The liability shield isn't necessarily a government creation either. 90% of it can be defined by contract law, it's only when interfacing with third parties not in contract with the corporation that it comes up, but that tends to be a minority of corporate litigation.
      - mindslight 2y ago
        That's assuming some unlimited ability to unilaterally push written contracts, and with those types of terms. If businesses were able to do that, we would expect it to be prevalent for the liability they do have today. Businesses are certainly trying with things like mandatory arbitration, but it would seem like a tall order in general. Especially as it's dubious whether something like a clickwrap EULA should even actually be considered a contract (due to lack of meeting of minds), or whether that current state of affairs is more appropriately viewed as corruption.

kaba0 2y ago

Libertarians are not known for their strong logical arguments.

mindslight 2y ago

Yes, "it's just another system of control". I used to partial to big-L Libertarianism. I'm not any more, mostly due to this flaw in the framing and the resulting conclusions. It essentially blesses corporations' extraconstitutional governing, by simply defining away the coercion (plus a healthy dose of ignoring that a "corporation" is itself a government creation). Then offers up individualist fundamentalism to cope with its glaring failings. (These days I identify as small-l "libertarian" because I still believe individual freedom is paramount. And it still puts me in the appropriate "other-weird" bucket with most people, rather than their friendly-kool-aid or other-enemy buckets).

Apocryphon 2y ago
I think that might fit into left-libertarianism and/or individualist libertarianism, perhaps.
lifeisstillgood 2y ago
Oh! I get it (I think) Corporations can be set up that do most of the governing, and do it the way “they” want. I assume Facebook is the poster boy here, something something Content moderation. I mean yes - kind of. My take is that most corporations are more interested in making a quick buck than in doing any governing (especially the hard stuff). Governing well is really really hard ( which is why it is so rare!). Outsourcing it even to your captured corporations just makes the whole thing harder surely? I am heartened by Zuckerberg standing up in congress and saying “well you tell me what is and is not allowed” Corporations either don’t want to govern (see above) or they already are the government (see Putin’s Russia) so it’s only extra constitutional if you think the constitution is worth more than the ink. I think despite everything we have shared belief that our western constitutions matter - even Zuckerberg
- mindslight 2y ago
  I avoided concrete examples because they tend to bring people out of the woodwork who see the goals of that specific exercise of power as a good thing, and then argue against the general criticism. I'd say that pigeonholing corporations as only interested in a "quick buck" is a fallacy. You're essentially focusing on one of their imperatives to write off concerns about another. From what I see corporations very much have an imperative to govern - in the small sense of controlling others, beyond what would otherwise be a disinterested smallest transactional scope. To run with your example, Facebook does not merely present a disinterested linear feed of posts, allow for users setting their own prioritization criteria, nor design their systems to be content-oblivious conduits. Rather Facebook inserts itself into users' relationships in ways that "drive engagement", and proactively polices users' content - either preemptively and summarily enforcing what Facebook perceives as the law, and even differing from the law for internal ideological or public relations purposes. That's essentially small scale governance, with the ability to opt out being directly tied to one's dependence on Facebook. If you're just using it to keep in touch with family, you can do that in other ways. If it's a critical part of promoting your local business, running afoul of its regulations is likely more of a critical problem than say failing a health department inspection.
pdonis 2y ago
> a "corporation" is itself a government creation Not necessarily. Today corporations are required to be created and maintained according to government procedures, but that wasn't always the case. To a small-l libertarian, a "corporation" is simply an obvious way for a group of people with a common goal to simplify the process of working towards that goal while interacting with the rest of the world, by creating a single virtual entity that can do things like be a party to contracts, participate in trades, etc., rather than requiring every single person working towards the goal to individually be a party to each such interaction. Of course, to a small-l libertarian, such corporations are not empowered to do anything their individual members could not do, and they don't change the limitations of the non-aggression principle. Which already leaves out much that actual corporations do in today's world.
- mindslight 2y ago
  My characterization is primarily referring to the liability shield aspect, which is a creation of government policy. If the owners of a corporation were jointly and severely liable for the actions and debts of the corporation, I'd accept the explanation that it's just a way for people to come together to achieve a common goal. But that liability shield allows for a level of scaled-up investor non-involvement that creates significant qualitative differences in the resulting behavior.
  - johngladtj 2y ago
    The liability shield isn't necessarily a government creation either. 90% of it can be defined by contract law, it's only when interfacing with third parties not in contract with the corporation that it comes up, but that tends to be a minority of corporate litigation.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      That's assuming some unlimited ability to unilaterally push written contracts, and with those types of terms. If businesses were able to do that, we would expect it to be prevalent for the liability they do have today. Businesses are certainly trying with things like mandatory arbitration, but it would seem like a tall order in general. Especially as it's dubious whether something like a clickwrap EULA should even actually be considered a contract (due to lack of meeting of minds), or whether that current state of affairs is more appropriately viewed as corruption.