3 ms·

Abuse of power isn't intrinsic to government, but there's a huge difference between the type of power that the State can abuse vs private corporations. 1. Your

Abuse of power isn't intrinsic to government, but there's a huge difference between the type of power that the State can abuse vs private corporations. 1. Your association with private corporations is voluntary, unlike (for the large part) your association with government. 2. The State can and will use physical force and threats thereof to enforce it's authority. To the extent Corporations abuse power ungoverned by the free market, they do so primarily via association with government.

chrischen 13y ago
But power is power. There's no difference except that the government is given by default certain powers most corporations don't have. However, corporations can still do assassinations, espionage, or even spying on customers. As long as the corporation is capable of doing it, and has ways of hiding it, then it can also be done.
- aric 13y ago
  There's a clear difference in power between power that controls police and military systems vs. power that's limited by the controls of natural, voluntary actions. I can't blame you for equating corporations with government and suggesting they both have unbridled power, given the current systems most of us live in. But it's absolutely wrong to infer that actions that would otherwise be illegal/violent by organizations are the equivalent of violent actions set into government policy. Again, the largest corporations many fear have disproportionate influence and market share specifically because of the backing of government law. For instance: When a group or psychopath commits mass murder, yes, it is a form of power. Yet, it's relatively contained. Society is more able to fight it and reject it. However, when a government that relies on involuntary funding commits mass murder - under the auspices of formal policy and fancy language - it becomes a form of power that society is less able to reject.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Power by definition, is something you can't reject. Otherwise you technically don't have the power... I'd say the Mexican drug cartels are de-facto examples of private corporations when they don't or can't rely on government to give them their power.
    - aric 13y ago
      The goal of a humane government structure should be to defend people and itself from abusive forms of power. Those cartels are analogous to (inhumane) government. They, as a result of US policy, have gained the ability to supersede previous governmental structures by using sheer force. They became dictatorial regimes. Conversely, private businesses acting as "corporations," as far as the US is concerned, are only powerful because of the system of government. The system inherently lends itself to corporatism through an architecture that allows for overreach at the very foundation of its design. I don't mean to mince words again but I have to, for the sake of liberty activists who try, fail, and sometimes succeed. Power is something we can reject. We can do it individually and collectively. (I realize we're using different interpretations of the word "reject" but it's still a point.) Knowledge and civil disobedience are often options. If physically freeing oneself is unwise or nearly impossible, one may try to stay mentally free. Rejection begins with mentality. If we don't perpetuate the philosophy and beauty of liberation, of rejection over defeatism, then I worry that this 'eternal flame,' which sparks the struggle for freedom and pervades a yearning for individuality and truth, may grow too dim. No, I know, the practicality of your words about power ring true. There are forms of power so hard to reject, physically and mentally, that they effectively render a person, or millions of people: powerless.
- argumentum 13y ago
  However, corporations can still do assassinations, espionage, or even spying on customers Haha, funny that you find "spying on customers" to be more worthy of an "even" than assassinations or espionage :) I remember an argument I had with a friend years ago .. would I rather have Google owning my information or the Government. I argued, Google of course, the worst they would use my info for was serving me better ads. I was wrong because I never realized that the government could force Google to hand my information over to them.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    It just so happens that the government is more powerful than Google. Also public companies are less at risk to abuse power because there is a separation of powers. Lots of diverse stock holders usually.
aric 13y ago
Yes. Let me reiterate the following though. It's important for people to understand that a free market doesn't exist where government serves to protect the "laws" of artificial trade entities (corporations). Unfortunately, given the corporatism that currently exists in government, people are unable to make voluntary choices on a more concrete level. The most people can do is abstain from certain purchases and boycott certain industries that aren't tied to federal funding and mandates: an increasingly dim prospect at that. Outside of conscientious consumerism, a lot of natural, peaceful behavior tends to disobey the policies of corporations and, consequently, government. Voluntary actions and natural, nonviolent behavior become "criminal" conduct. The guaranteed funding of violent forms of power will make certain their growth, consolidation, and ability to crush dissent. Voluntary actions are wonderful. Voluntaryist-based frameworks that serve to uphold free choice, speech, and markets do, indeed, stand as a separate entity from government. As you aptly point out: unlike the State, entities that engage in voluntary association should be unable to use physical force and massive economic constraints to intimidate and sustain their own authority.
- argumentum 13y ago
  Agree, pretty much entirely. Corporatism is the greatest enemy of those who believe in freedom, and by extension in freedom of voluntary association. But I don't think consumerism needs to be "conscientious" in the sense that consumers act altruistically. It's in my self-interest that my privacy is protected, for example.
  - aric 13y ago
    I agree with your underlying statement. However, this comes down to semantics now. I contend that altruism is innately human and, of course, common among many animals. Compassion and empathy run deep in the consciousness of many people. Altruism is generally the word used to describe actions based on a sense of compassionate imperative. As such, altruism as a word should be preserved and not confused with contradicting forces at play. The contradicting forces at play are those that would mandate the way in which others act, even if it betrays the ethics of others. That isn't real altruism. It's artificial. Unfortunately, most people conflate the two as one in the same due to pseudo-liberal (read: not liberating) indoctrination that equates [using force to implore a moral imperative] as being justified by its ends without addressing the means which victimize people and don't allow for disassociation. I imagine you agree fully. Altruism is a word that has been perverted and besmirched by multiple sides. Altruism cannot exist in the context of force. Altruism nevertheless exists and it is 'good' in nature. In other words, no, I'm not implying that consumerism [needs] to be conscientious. Emphasis on [needs]. [Needs] implies a mandate which requires force. I would imply, however, as a human rights proponent and activist living in a world of governmental and corporate tyranny, that conscientious consumerism is one of the few and best remaining forms of intelligently advocating for one's interests and the interests of those who we care about: the people of this world that are often treated like serfs and subjects. Conscientious consumerism is part of the lifeblood of web-of-trusts within free and natural markets. Yes, I would encourage all people (who care about particular issues) to inform themselves and be mindful of the organizations and businesses they directly or indirectly support. I, for one, try not to support abusive companies with policies that noticeably exploit labor and land. Whether this is in my self-interests is merely semantics, for anything I believe and choose is inherently my self-interest manifesting itself through knowledge and action. Power in numbers still exists. Indeed, altruism begins with the "self." This is another aspect many sides do not fully appreciate. Selfishness and selflessness are words that can possibly be interchangeable and inverted. More people should recognize their own individual self worth. To do so is to also recognize the humanity and self-worth of others. No law is inherently more righteous than the conscience of the individual who must decide whether he or she can morally abide by it. If more people valued themselves in a non-superficial sense, I feel they would be less willing to defer their rights and bodies to the authority of violent groups. Ironically in these words, if more people valued their self worth, I believe that more [selflessness] would flourish: real acts of compassion and community-supporting behavior - acts based on voluntary choice, which we could proudly label "altruistic."

chrischen 13y ago

But power is power. There's no difference except that the government is given by default certain powers most corporations don't have. However, corporations can still do assassinations, espionage, or even spying on customers. As long as the corporation is capable of doing it, and has ways of hiding it, then it can also be done.

aric 13y ago
There's a clear difference in power between power that controls police and military systems vs. power that's limited by the controls of natural, voluntary actions. I can't blame you for equating corporations with government and suggesting they both have unbridled power, given the current systems most of us live in. But it's absolutely wrong to infer that actions that would otherwise be illegal/violent by organizations are the equivalent of violent actions set into government policy. Again, the largest corporations many fear have disproportionate influence and market share specifically because of the backing of government law. For instance: When a group or psychopath commits mass murder, yes, it is a form of power. Yet, it's relatively contained. Society is more able to fight it and reject it. However, when a government that relies on involuntary funding commits mass murder - under the auspices of formal policy and fancy language - it becomes a form of power that society is less able to reject.
- chrischen 13y ago
  Power by definition, is something you can't reject. Otherwise you technically don't have the power... I'd say the Mexican drug cartels are de-facto examples of private corporations when they don't or can't rely on government to give them their power.
  - aric 13y ago
    The goal of a humane government structure should be to defend people and itself from abusive forms of power. Those cartels are analogous to (inhumane) government. They, as a result of US policy, have gained the ability to supersede previous governmental structures by using sheer force. They became dictatorial regimes. Conversely, private businesses acting as "corporations," as far as the US is concerned, are only powerful because of the system of government. The system inherently lends itself to corporatism through an architecture that allows for overreach at the very foundation of its design. I don't mean to mince words again but I have to, for the sake of liberty activists who try, fail, and sometimes succeed. Power is something we can reject. We can do it individually and collectively. (I realize we're using different interpretations of the word "reject" but it's still a point.) Knowledge and civil disobedience are often options. If physically freeing oneself is unwise or nearly impossible, one may try to stay mentally free. Rejection begins with mentality. If we don't perpetuate the philosophy and beauty of liberation, of rejection over defeatism, then I worry that this 'eternal flame,' which sparks the struggle for freedom and pervades a yearning for individuality and truth, may grow too dim. No, I know, the practicality of your words about power ring true. There are forms of power so hard to reject, physically and mentally, that they effectively render a person, or millions of people: powerless.
argumentum 13y ago
However, corporations can still do assassinations, espionage, or even spying on customers Haha, funny that you find "spying on customers" to be more worthy of an "even" than assassinations or espionage :) I remember an argument I had with a friend years ago .. would I rather have Google owning my information or the Government. I argued, Google of course, the worst they would use my info for was serving me better ads. I was wrong because I never realized that the government could force Google to hand my information over to them.
- chrischen 13y ago
  It just so happens that the government is more powerful than Google. Also public companies are less at risk to abuse power because there is a separation of powers. Lots of diverse stock holders usually.

aric 13y ago

Yes. Let me reiterate the following though. It's important for people to understand that a free market doesn't exist where government serves to protect the "laws" of artificial trade entities (corporations). Unfortunately, given the corporatism that currently exists in government, people are unable to make voluntary choices on a more concrete level. The most people can do is abstain from certain purchases and boycott certain industries that aren't tied to federal funding and mandates: an increasingly dim prospect at that. Outside of conscientious consumerism, a lot of natural, peaceful behavior tends to disobey the policies of corporations and, consequently, government. Voluntary actions and natural, nonviolent behavior become "criminal" conduct. The guaranteed funding of violent forms of power will make certain their growth, consolidation, and ability to crush dissent. Voluntary actions are wonderful. Voluntaryist-based frameworks that serve to uphold free choice, speech, and markets do, indeed, stand as a separate entity from government. As you aptly point out: unlike the State, entities that engage in voluntary association should be unable to use physical force and massive economic constraints to intimidate and sustain their own authority.

argumentum 13y ago
Agree, pretty much entirely. Corporatism is the greatest enemy of those who believe in freedom, and by extension in freedom of voluntary association. But I don't think consumerism needs to be "conscientious" in the sense that consumers act altruistically. It's in my self-interest that my privacy is protected, for example.
- aric 13y ago
  I agree with your underlying statement. However, this comes down to semantics now. I contend that altruism is innately human and, of course, common among many animals. Compassion and empathy run deep in the consciousness of many people. Altruism is generally the word used to describe actions based on a sense of compassionate imperative. As such, altruism as a word should be preserved and not confused with contradicting forces at play. The contradicting forces at play are those that would mandate the way in which others act, even if it betrays the ethics of others. That isn't real altruism. It's artificial. Unfortunately, most people conflate the two as one in the same due to pseudo-liberal (read: not liberating) indoctrination that equates [using force to implore a moral imperative] as being justified by its ends without addressing the means which victimize people and don't allow for disassociation. I imagine you agree fully. Altruism is a word that has been perverted and besmirched by multiple sides. Altruism cannot exist in the context of force. Altruism nevertheless exists and it is 'good' in nature. In other words, no, I'm not implying that consumerism [needs] to be conscientious. Emphasis on [needs]. [Needs] implies a mandate which requires force. I would imply, however, as a human rights proponent and activist living in a world of governmental and corporate tyranny, that conscientious consumerism is one of the few and best remaining forms of intelligently advocating for one's interests and the interests of those who we care about: the people of this world that are often treated like serfs and subjects. Conscientious consumerism is part of the lifeblood of web-of-trusts within free and natural markets. Yes, I would encourage all people (who care about particular issues) to inform themselves and be mindful of the organizations and businesses they directly or indirectly support. I, for one, try not to support abusive companies with policies that noticeably exploit labor and land. Whether this is in my self-interests is merely semantics, for anything I believe and choose is inherently my self-interest manifesting itself through knowledge and action. Power in numbers still exists. Indeed, altruism begins with the "self." This is another aspect many sides do not fully appreciate. Selfishness and selflessness are words that can possibly be interchangeable and inverted. More people should recognize their own individual self worth. To do so is to also recognize the humanity and self-worth of others. No law is inherently more righteous than the conscience of the individual who must decide whether he or she can morally abide by it. If more people valued themselves in a non-superficial sense, I feel they would be less willing to defer their rights and bodies to the authority of violent groups. Ironically in these words, if more people valued their self worth, I believe that more [selflessness] would flourish: real acts of compassion and community-supporting behavior - acts based on voluntary choice, which we could proudly label "altruistic."