5 ms·

Governments can't resist mission creep. True, but it's not like people or corporations are that much better at resisting it, is it? Show me a big organization,

Governments can't resist mission creep. True, but it's not like people or corporations are that much better at resisting it, is it? Show me a big organization, and I will show you a whole lot of fingers in a whole lot of unrelated pies.

jacques_chester 13y ago
Agreed. However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on violence and the ability to set the rules. Special cases deserve special treatment. edit: it's a small world, I recognise your username from LP.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  It's not as if private companies or entrepreneurial off-books pharmaceutically-oriented import-export fraternal organizations haven't resorted to violence. And they're hardly the only ones. Standard Oil literally blew up the competition. Homestead Steel hired the Pinkertons to bash heads (and kill a few). Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Aetna kill indirectly by denying shelter, access to finances, or healthcare coverage. The Libertardian arguments are getting more than a little tired, and we've heard them repeated a few too many times.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    Is this a relevant line of argument? Yes, historically, companies have acted violently and even taken on state-like roles (I listed the EIC as an example elsewhere in this thread). But these case are remarkable because they are rare, not common. And because in all such cases they predate the settlement of an uncontested government monopoly on violence in some geographical area. I suppose you are mistaking me for a Rothtard, an anarcho-capitalist who believes in a free market in violence. Not so; it's been pretty well shown by now that centralising the social violence function is, on the whole, a better strategy. But it comes with the downside that you've centralised a lot of power and it needs particular supervision and constraint.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      Is this a relevant line of argument? Well, let's refer to your initial claim: "However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on violence and the ability to set the rules." Now, either you're tautalogically defining any organization which sets rules and exacts violence in pursuit of its ends as a government (which is a meaningless distinction), or you're making a nonsense argument. Actually, both are nonsense arguments. Note too that I've included a number of other organizations other than state-registered corporations, though I include those. Yes, historically, companies have acted violently Sure. Where historically was: July 6 when Montreal Maine & Atlantic declared total war on the town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-lawsuit-idUSBRE96E0U520130715 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-lawsuit-i... April 17, when West Fertilizer Company declared war on West, Texas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos... Ongoing corporate war through the 2000s carried out by the Gulf Cartel subsidiary Los Zetas in Neuvo Lardo, Mexico, with death tolls running to the 100s annually: http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html Ongoing petro-religious corporate warfare in Iraq, with a death toll in the 10s to 100s of thousands: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-attacks-around-iraq-kill-9-people/2517543/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-a... May 15,2 2013, Wells Fargo's war against individuals who were not even its mortgage holders: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-wrongful-foreclosure-kills-elderly-homeowner/ https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-wron... November 25, 2012, war on behalf of American and other clothing manufacturers and retailers against Bangladeshi garment workers: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-fire/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-... December 2-3, 1984, war by Union Carbide against the citizens of Bhopal, India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster All of these are cases in which violence was used by companies directly or through conscious and deliberate disregard for human safety and consequences in the aim of profit. The use of force to secure control or direct gains. Or perhaps you'd like to address companies such as Blackwater (now Xe), armed affiliates of oil, gas, mineral, and diamond operations, forestry operators, and others, who transact directly in death and force? The distinction you're drawing simply doesn't exist.
- falk 13y ago
  Are you familiar with Blackwater? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Yes, but governmental violence is also used in the furthuring of private profit, and I'm not sure private profit off government policy is just a side effect and not also a symbiotic relationship. Bombs are expensive, rebuilding is expensive, terahertz scanners may do nothing for "security" but do wonders for bank accounts; and many of the costs to tax payers ultimately end up in private hands. Historically, governments have a lot more horrible things under their belt, but I'm still worried we now simply have an additional problem. I don't see much of a difference between power for the sake of power and profit for the sake of profit, and they make a great couple, too. (That must be someone else, since I never used this nick before this account and don't even know what LP is. The Libertarian Party?)
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    Larvatus Prodeo, a website that I host. One of the authors uses Pavlov's Cat as the nom de plume.
ekianjo 13y ago
Corporations don't make War and enlist people to fight for them. The comparison does not make sense. And corporations can die and go bankrupt. Governments will make everyone else die or go poor before they do.
- pfisch 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure corporations have done both of these things. Also Governments die all the time....
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Corporations, making war? Like what, millions of people backing them up? Any source to share to back your argument up ? At most you can say that corporations have been influencing governments to go to War, but a single corporation has not enough leverage to hire hundred of thousands of soldiers to fight. Ultimately War needs State involvement. Governments dying all the time? Like where? You mean in small countries? I'm talking about developed countries here, with big governments in place. They are very unlikely to die any time soon.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      The East India Company behaved like an independent state, complete with an army, civil service and diplomatic corps. As for countries dying, even great powers, consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugqGueQ9Ud8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugqGueQ9Ud8
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        Wow, great, you could come up with a SINGLE example for a company with State-like powers, and that was 200 years ago. And they never waged war on large regions at a time. And let's not forget their expansion was blessed by their own government. Do you have any recent example of super-powerful corporation waging war around the world by themselves? Any example of corporation launching WW1 or WW2, or even something remotely big as the Vietnam war, all by themselves ? It's fairly obvious that no corporation nowadays has the financial means to wage war by themselves. It takes 100 billions to wage war in Iraq. Top tier companies make that much in REVENUE, not even profit. How would you expect them to spend so much? Your point does not make sense.

jacques_chester 13y ago

Agreed. However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on violence and the ability to set the rules. Special cases deserve special treatment. edit: it's a small world, I recognise your username from LP.

dredmorbius 13y ago
It's not as if private companies or entrepreneurial off-books pharmaceutically-oriented import-export fraternal organizations haven't resorted to violence. And they're hardly the only ones. Standard Oil literally blew up the competition. Homestead Steel hired the Pinkertons to bash heads (and kill a few). Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Aetna kill indirectly by denying shelter, access to finances, or healthcare coverage. The Libertardian arguments are getting more than a little tired, and we've heard them repeated a few too many times.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Is this a relevant line of argument? Yes, historically, companies have acted violently and even taken on state-like roles (I listed the EIC as an example elsewhere in this thread). But these case are remarkable because they are rare, not common. And because in all such cases they predate the settlement of an uncontested government monopoly on violence in some geographical area. I suppose you are mistaking me for a Rothtard, an anarcho-capitalist who believes in a free market in violence. Not so; it's been pretty well shown by now that centralising the social violence function is, on the whole, a better strategy. But it comes with the downside that you've centralised a lot of power and it needs particular supervision and constraint.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    Is this a relevant line of argument? Well, let's refer to your initial claim: "However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on violence and the ability to set the rules." Now, either you're tautalogically defining any organization which sets rules and exacts violence in pursuit of its ends as a government (which is a meaningless distinction), or you're making a nonsense argument. Actually, both are nonsense arguments. Note too that I've included a number of other organizations other than state-registered corporations, though I include those. Yes, historically, companies have acted violently Sure. Where historically was: July 6 when Montreal Maine & Atlantic declared total war on the town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-lawsuit-idUSBRE96E0U520130715 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-lawsuit-i... April 17, when West Fertilizer Company declared war on West, Texas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos... Ongoing corporate war through the 2000s carried out by the Gulf Cartel subsidiary Los Zetas in Neuvo Lardo, Mexico, with death tolls running to the 100s annually: http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html Ongoing petro-religious corporate warfare in Iraq, with a death toll in the 10s to 100s of thousands: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-attacks-around-iraq-kill-9-people/2517543/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-a... May 15,2 2013, Wells Fargo's war against individuals who were not even its mortgage holders: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-wrongful-foreclosure-kills-elderly-homeowner/ https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-wron... November 25, 2012, war on behalf of American and other clothing manufacturers and retailers against Bangladeshi garment workers: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-fire/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-... December 2-3, 1984, war by Union Carbide against the citizens of Bhopal, India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster All of these are cases in which violence was used by companies directly or through conscious and deliberate disregard for human safety and consequences in the aim of profit. The use of force to secure control or direct gains. Or perhaps you'd like to address companies such as Blackwater (now Xe), armed affiliates of oil, gas, mineral, and diamond operations, forestry operators, and others, who transact directly in death and force? The distinction you're drawing simply doesn't exist.
falk 13y ago
Are you familiar with Blackwater? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Yes, but governmental violence is also used in the furthuring of private profit, and I'm not sure private profit off government policy is just a side effect and not also a symbiotic relationship. Bombs are expensive, rebuilding is expensive, terahertz scanners may do nothing for "security" but do wonders for bank accounts; and many of the costs to tax payers ultimately end up in private hands. Historically, governments have a lot more horrible things under their belt, but I'm still worried we now simply have an additional problem. I don't see much of a difference between power for the sake of power and profit for the sake of profit, and they make a great couple, too. (That must be someone else, since I never used this nick before this account and don't even know what LP is. The Libertarian Party?)
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Larvatus Prodeo, a website that I host. One of the authors uses Pavlov's Cat as the nom de plume.

ekianjo 13y ago

Corporations don't make War and enlist people to fight for them. The comparison does not make sense. And corporations can die and go bankrupt. Governments will make everyone else die or go poor before they do.

pfisch 13y ago
I'm pretty sure corporations have done both of these things. Also Governments die all the time....
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Corporations, making war? Like what, millions of people backing them up? Any source to share to back your argument up ? At most you can say that corporations have been influencing governments to go to War, but a single corporation has not enough leverage to hire hundred of thousands of soldiers to fight. Ultimately War needs State involvement. Governments dying all the time? Like where? You mean in small countries? I'm talking about developed countries here, with big governments in place. They are very unlikely to die any time soon.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    The East India Company behaved like an independent state, complete with an army, civil service and diplomatic corps. As for countries dying, even great powers, consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugqGueQ9Ud8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugqGueQ9Ud8
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Wow, great, you could come up with a SINGLE example for a company with State-like powers, and that was 200 years ago. And they never waged war on large regions at a time. And let's not forget their expansion was blessed by their own government. Do you have any recent example of super-powerful corporation waging war around the world by themselves? Any example of corporation launching WW1 or WW2, or even something remotely big as the Vietnam war, all by themselves ? It's fairly obvious that no corporation nowadays has the financial means to wage war by themselves. It takes 100 billions to wage war in Iraq. Top tier companies make that much in REVENUE, not even profit. How would you expect them to spend so much? Your point does not make sense.