4 ms·

What most people do not see is that libertarianism is against big corporations as well as big govrnment. In fact bigcos can not exist without government support

What most people do not see is that libertarianism is against big corporations as well as big govrnment. In fact bigcos can not exist without government support. Reducing government and allowing the market to work should result in smaller, not larger organizations, a dinosaurs to mammals transition.

nfg 18y ago
"In fact bigcos can not exist without government support" That is a mighty big claim which flies in the face of practical experience.
- likpok 18y ago
  Not that I necessarily disagree, but you could argue that in the time there have been corporations, there was also government support.
- michaelkeenan 18y ago
  alexandros might be referring to the argument was made by Roderick Long in Cato's lead essay in November: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/ http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corpora... He points out that government funding of highways acts as a de facto subsidy of Walmart and similar chains by partly socializing the costs of shipping, making it easier to compete with local businesses; and that regulations (which large companies can more easily understand and comply with than smaller companies) provide barriers of entry to industries. He concludes: "In a free market, firms would be smaller and less hierarchical, more local and more numerous" (I don't have a strong opinion on this. It sounds plausible but it's a bit anecdotal for my taste.)
  - bmj 18y ago
    I'm sympathetic to this, but at the same time, most local sellers (outside of those who exclusively sell locally-produced goods) rely on the same transportation system.
    - trickjarrett 18y ago
      I would argue they don't rely on it so much as make use of it. As cities grow then they need to truck supplies in from elsewhere, but for suburbs and rural areas they can survive on the local economy.
      - bmj 18y ago
        Maybe. It depends where you live, though--not every area is capable of sustaining its own food supply(1). And, even those that are still import some goods. But I think we're shifting the discussion a bit to a "Long Emergency" scenario. As a bit of localist, I'm more troubled by local governments who bend over backward to bring large retailers into an area. I think these more localized benefits (tax breaks, development dollars, etc) are far more beneficial to, say, Wal-Mart, than the highway system. (1) And many that can have transformed that land into housing and strip malls. EDIT: Fixed formatting.
- omouse 18y ago
  GM? Ford? I know IBM, HP, etc. get government contracts or at least did and those count as government support. Don't forget Microsoft which was supposed to be broken up but wasn't. Also, Bell and Rogers (in Canada) who are basically allowed to have monopolies over the phone and cable lines. Lockheed Martin and Boeing couldn't be as huge as they are without defense contracts either.
- anthonyrubin 18y ago
  Some ways in which the government helps large corporations: Subsidies, government contracts, regulations designed to increase barrier to entry, a legal system which favors those with more resources, beneficial legislation which can be bought through legalized bribery (lobbying and campaign contributions)
- alexandros 18y ago
  I am sorry, I had very little time to post and did not hedge my claim appropriately. I am glad that others have stepped in and filed the gap. The issue is that the government increases complexity and barriers to entry and therefore raising the Coase ceiling of how large an enterprise can become before being less efficient than a coalition of smaller rivals.
- ngvrnd 18y ago
  And, perhaps someone has pointed this out, but once gov't begins to regulate economic activity, the existing corporate players inevitably start to game the system. Who was it who said that truly free trade is great because it's the only ways to keep the capitalists in check?
jules 18y ago
Why? Intuitively I would think that this would lead to bigger corporations.
pelle 18y ago
Bravo, right on. Historically big cos use government to keep smaller competitors out. Just look at internet businesses. They are fairly unregulated and while there are short term market leaders, these are constantly being challenged and eventually replaced by smaller more innovative competitors (90's .com vs. Google vs. yc) Look at regulated businesses such as banking, auto and telecoms. These are examples where the bigcos itself has lobbied in most of the regulation. They have grown bigger and bigger and are now so big that "they can't fail" even though they actually did. A truly free market (as libertarians believe we should have) in banking, auto and telecoms would have killed off citibank, gm and att years ago just as Excite, Netscape, AltaVista and others were in our business.

nfg 18y ago

"In fact bigcos can not exist without government support" That is a mighty big claim which flies in the face of practical experience.

likpok 18y ago
Not that I necessarily disagree, but you could argue that in the time there have been corporations, there was also government support.
michaelkeenan 18y ago
alexandros might be referring to the argument was made by Roderick Long in Cato's lead essay in November: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/ http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corpora... He points out that government funding of highways acts as a de facto subsidy of Walmart and similar chains by partly socializing the costs of shipping, making it easier to compete with local businesses; and that regulations (which large companies can more easily understand and comply with than smaller companies) provide barriers of entry to industries. He concludes: "In a free market, firms would be smaller and less hierarchical, more local and more numerous" (I don't have a strong opinion on this. It sounds plausible but it's a bit anecdotal for my taste.)
- bmj 18y ago
  I'm sympathetic to this, but at the same time, most local sellers (outside of those who exclusively sell locally-produced goods) rely on the same transportation system.
  - trickjarrett 18y ago
    I would argue they don't rely on it so much as make use of it. As cities grow then they need to truck supplies in from elsewhere, but for suburbs and rural areas they can survive on the local economy.
    - bmj 18y ago
      Maybe. It depends where you live, though--not every area is capable of sustaining its own food supply(1). And, even those that are still import some goods. But I think we're shifting the discussion a bit to a "Long Emergency" scenario. As a bit of localist, I'm more troubled by local governments who bend over backward to bring large retailers into an area. I think these more localized benefits (tax breaks, development dollars, etc) are far more beneficial to, say, Wal-Mart, than the highway system. (1) And many that can have transformed that land into housing and strip malls. EDIT: Fixed formatting.
omouse 18y ago
GM? Ford? I know IBM, HP, etc. get government contracts or at least did and those count as government support. Don't forget Microsoft which was supposed to be broken up but wasn't. Also, Bell and Rogers (in Canada) who are basically allowed to have monopolies over the phone and cable lines. Lockheed Martin and Boeing couldn't be as huge as they are without defense contracts either.
anthonyrubin 18y ago
Some ways in which the government helps large corporations: Subsidies, government contracts, regulations designed to increase barrier to entry, a legal system which favors those with more resources, beneficial legislation which can be bought through legalized bribery (lobbying and campaign contributions)
alexandros 18y ago
I am sorry, I had very little time to post and did not hedge my claim appropriately. I am glad that others have stepped in and filed the gap. The issue is that the government increases complexity and barriers to entry and therefore raising the Coase ceiling of how large an enterprise can become before being less efficient than a coalition of smaller rivals.
ngvrnd 18y ago
And, perhaps someone has pointed this out, but once gov't begins to regulate economic activity, the existing corporate players inevitably start to game the system. Who was it who said that truly free trade is great because it's the only ways to keep the capitalists in check?

jules 18y ago

Why? Intuitively I would think that this would lead to bigger corporations.

pelle 18y ago

Bravo, right on. Historically big cos use government to keep smaller competitors out. Just look at internet businesses. They are fairly unregulated and while there are short term market leaders, these are constantly being challenged and eventually replaced by smaller more innovative competitors (90's .com vs. Google vs. yc) Look at regulated businesses such as banking, auto and telecoms. These are examples where the bigcos itself has lobbied in most of the regulation. They have grown bigger and bigger and are now so big that "they can't fail" even though they actually did. A truly free market (as libertarians believe we should have) in banking, auto and telecoms would have killed off citibank, gm and att years ago just as Excite, Netscape, AltaVista and others were in our business.