/ancap/ - Anarcho-Capitalism

AnCap is completely laissez-faire. No central control at all.

And if you want to ask about "oppression", you're going to need to define it. We do not consider working for a living to be oppression.

Well it's just that corporations with less regulation tend to exploit their workers more.

And I find exploitation a form of opression

>>152
1) Replacing one ill-defined term ("oppression") with another ("exploitation") doesn't clear things up. What do you mean?
2) There is no such thing as an unregulated market. All markets are regulated by consumers. AnCaps argue against centralized control, which is often referred to as "regulation".
3) Corporations are products of centralized economic controls. Without a central body controlling what people are allowed to do, there could not exist the liability-limiting legislation which defines corporate status.
4) After defining your terms, the onus would fall upon you to substantiate the claim that a lack of central control on businesses tends to produce more of this "exploitation" or "oppression" than that which is constituted by the implementation of an authoritative structure which restricts people's freedom to work and trade as they wish.

>>153
1. exploitation - The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
2. Consumers don't always care if the product they are buying was made available through exploitation of workers. Not saying that is necessarily wrong. Just asking if you care about exploitation and do you think that exploitation=oppression or not?
3. Not sure if you meant that corporations are centralized or that centralized power brings corporations? Corporations will always have a centralized control because it increases productivity and therefore profit. I personally don't believe that corporations are products of government(s), since I think they would exist even if there were no centralized power or legislation, because that's how economy works. Companies grow and they try to beat or consume their competition because that is how they can have a bigger profit.
4. Since companies in a free market orientated society need to keep growing and keeping profit they will always look for ways to minimize their spending. So one of the sure ways to do that is to make your workers work as much as they can for as less money as they can. That is in most cases a good predisposition for exploitation of workers. And usually you have here the state which tries to regulate or prevent exploitation. I don't believe it is any good at it, but at least I get my 30 days of paid holidays a year. And why would a profit oriented company want to give me that privilege if it would cost them money?

Also if there is no one to regulate anything. Who is to say that google will not fund his own army and force me to live by his rules? So then we would only change one self appointed oppressor for another.

>>154
1) That's pretty vague, but I'll try to work with it.

2) Of course this exploitation you worry about is distasteful, but unless they're being forced to work against their will, there's no ethical problem; their suffering is their own responsibility. A market which is not centrally controlled has unlimited potential for competitors to offer better working conditions to attract employees, and people will choose whichever position best fits their personal needs and priorities. Many people choose to work in "sweatshops". Let them.

3) A corporation is a legal entity formed in part by the limited-liability legislation passed in the United States in the early 1900s. What that means is that the government recognizes a legal fiction identified as the "corporation" which takes legal responsibility for the actions of the people within the company. If somebody sells cadmium-laced toys, the people who made those decisions cannot be sued by the harmed parties. You are forbidden by government law from seeking justice. Only the corporation can be sued, and so the responsible parties do not experience the consequences of their decisions. This allows them to socialize costs and privatize gains, which is where a considerable portion of corporate abuse comes from.
Other sources include intellectual property laws, licensure laws, and central economic regulations that only large established firms can afford to comply with, preventing competitors from entering the market.
Companies could and will exist, but corporations, by virtue of being dependent upon central government for their existence, could not exist absent that central government.

4) The assertion that companies must grow is unfounded. There are hundreds of thousands of small businesses in the US alone run by people quite content to maintain their current size. Sure, some companies would expand, but this is not necessary, and it should also be mentioned that many companies–even large ones–shrink and even disappear entirely.
One way to consider the wages issue is to remember that every sale is a purchase and every purchase is a sale. You buy currency with your labor, and you sell your labor for currency. You are a trading partner, and as such you have to come to an agreement. If you've ever had a job interview, you've probably heard them ask what you're willing to work for. This is an important step in the employment process: you're setting the price of your own labor. If they're not willing to pay it, you can go find someone who is, or lower the price. It's your choice. Everyone has this choice in a free market. Just as jobs are scarce resources, so is labor. You have bargaining power, especially if you're skilled.
In a free market, everyone is working for what they agreed to, and if they become dissatisfied with the arrangement, they can leave. General demand for higher wages drives wages up.

As for the Google army thing; the US military, the largest military in the world, doesn't have anywhere near the manpower needed to control its population. Sure, they could just carpet-bomb us, but that's a game they can't win. They need us for revenue. The only thing that keeps them in power is the general delusion that they are necessary. A society where people have personal, practical experience as to the lack of necessity of government would be extremely hard-pressed to recreate that delusion. Furthermore, Google (and especially a information technology firm like Google) couldn't possibly maintain the stranglehold on the market that it does now, since it would be trivially simple for other companies to just copy their business model and try to do it better. They'd be up to their necks in competition. Further still, the fact that so many people are afraid of this army thing happening means that they forsee that possibility and would be willing to pay for a service of their own to specialize in securing them against it.