[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog

See 8chan's new software in development (discuss) (help out)
Infinity Next Beta period has started, click here for info or go directly to beta.8ch.net
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

File: 1449028394249.jpg (70.52 KB, 743x557, 743:557, silicon-valley-benson-3.jpg)

 No.13483

So how exactly are large corporations any different from the government and vice versa? Both organizations control people's lives in one way or another, swim in money, too big too fail, full of power-hungry assholes who love to put on this show of being holier than thou but in reality would gladly stab you in the back for more power, etc. The difference really seems to be superficial.

So why is it ok to restrict one but not the other? Both should be restricted for individual freedom.

inb4 but muh collectivism is ok because it fits in the capitalist framework

 No.13485

The government is just the parent company.


 No.13488

Large corporations, in and of themselves, are not a problem. Name any major charity and you're looking at a large corporation. It is important not to simply equate corporations with corruption and greed.

Those which do exhibit these nefarious traits are able to do so only by leveraging the power of the state, which is the sole beneficiary of the mass delusion of legitimate coercive authority. If there was no government and Pepsi-Cola tried to march an army down main street, the vast majority of persons would not hesitate to resist this violently; yet those same persons will almost universally passively accept the government doing exactly the same thing (and they regularly do).

When you talk about "restricting" corporations or government, keep in mind how you're proposing to do this. Corporations are restricted by government in a general way, but this only serves to grant privileges to a few select corporate cronies who ally themselves with government officials. Somehow, it is generally expected that government will be restricted by… government? Why would the entity with the plurality of violent power and the benefit a mass delusion of its legitimacy restrict itself, other than for show?

Or perhaps you're expecting "the People" to restrict it. But that requires them to be in some sort of general agreement as to where to draw the line, and we can all see that state-trained persons have a near-limitless tolerance for the encroachments of the institution which largely raised them.

To circle back to your central question: the fundamental difference between the government and any other corporation (and government is a corporation; that is, a fiction) is that government is a corporation which is generally believed to be morally justified and legally obligated to violently coerce everyone else. Eliminate that element, and there's nothing wrong with corporations in and of themselves.


 No.13489

>>13488

You mean large charities like the ones which act as a PR front for UN and various other organizations when they trade with the local warlord that plunder the locals? Or the ones done for tax breaks? It is very easy to equate corporations with corruption and greed since that's the point of their existence - to make profit for their shareholders regardless of morality that may get in the way. I don't think such entities need a government to corrupt them, a government does as you say facilitate them further under the guise that they are controlling them for the people though.


 No.13490

>>13489

You have entirely ignored the core content of the post, injected your own narrative based on a warped sense of the world, and failed entirely to contribute to the discussion in any constructive fashion.

I will not waste my effort on you.


 No.13491

>blah blah corporations

Corporations are a legal shield that would not be favored by a free market.

Corporations are basically just saying "okay, so you're going to do business with us, but the guys at the top are in no way personally liable if we go under, so their billions in assets are untouchable if we blow all your savings."

Would people favor this in a free market? No. It's a stupid corporate shield created in the 19th century by the government to open up lines of credit.


 No.13494

>>13491

If you're referring to corporations as the modern legal entity enshrined in statutory law, I'm in complete agreement with you. In the more general sense of an incorporation of persons working professionally with property managed under a collective fiction, I would disagree. Limited liability legislation (and the resultant LLCs) are absolutely not free-market entities, and no private court would be bound to respect limited liability arrangements unless by contract, and it would be a foolish person indeed who brought their case to such a court.


 No.13495

>>13490

>warped sense of the world

Would you like another plane for that projection?


 No.13496

File: 1449035238951-0.gif (2.91 MB, 200x155, 40:31, 1448824324144.gif)

File: 1449035238951-1.jpg (39.97 KB, 500x501, 500:501, tuition_rates.jpg)

File: 1449035238952-2.jpg (65.79 KB, 720x720, 1:1, wac.jpg)

File: 1449035238952-3.jpg (83.92 KB, 960x540, 16:9, 11954820_447356675435880_1….jpg)

>So how exactly are large corporations any different from the government and vice versa?

Can a large corporation shoot you?

Can a large corporation create laws out of their ass (excluding lobbying) to throw you in jail?

Can a large corporation exist even if consumers don't like them? (protip; they can't)

Can a large corporation hold you at gunpoint and demand your money or they'll put you in a cage?

Can individuals in a large corporation get away with crimes? (I'm talking actual crimes, not victimless crimes like doing lines of cocaine)

Do people assume large corporations are harmless beings who would never go against the will of the people?

Is the corporation allowed to hold a monopoly by violently killing or subduing their competitors?

Large corporations are bad, but ultimately, if you can answer yes to any of my above questions, then you need to look at why they can do that- the answer is always government. Corporations get their power from government.

Are large corporations bad? Most certainly, no one is going to deny that the owners of Apple are fucking assholes. Are they the problem? No. They are a symptom of the problem. Large corporations may be your sore throat and runny nose, but the cause of the sore throat and runny nose is the virus or bacterial infection known as government.

>So why is it ok to restrict one but not the other? Both should be restricted for individual freedom.

Because as any economist or businessman can point out, it is theoretically improbable if not impossible for a corporation to hold a monopoly large enough to be defined as "large enough to cause damage" without prior government intervention into the marketplace. Government-sponsored monopolies suck balls because competition can't crop up. The difference is that in a free market, the corporation must outperform all of their competition and do so consistently and efficiently in order to maintain their monopoly- that means increasingly better (if not new) goods on the consumer's end.

When people make any claim of "well your ideology fails because X corporation-" It's important to remind them that a large corporation CAN NOT form unless they are either A. Better than all of their competition (standard oil, early Ford models, etc.), B. Hold a "secrecy monopoly" on their product (soft drink recipes, diamond cutters, etc.), or C. Get government intervention in the marketplace to keep competition from forming (Comcast, Banks, most Cell Phone companies, etc.).

A large corporation is subject to all of the same inefficiencies that government is when spread out over a large region. This is why corporations such as Goodwill opt to make each region autonomous and to just collect the bill/fund further development on-site rather than to micromanage. It's the same reason the corporate structure of various managers exists. If you deny that big central government is subject to inefficiency the larger it gets, then you shouldn't even be making this argument in the first place.


 No.13497

>>13483

More importantly, what is the difference between a corporation in a Capitalist world (a combination of investors owning in the means of production), and a corporation in a socialist world (a combination of workers owning the means of production)?


 No.13503

File: 1449043255288.webm (4.94 MB, 854x480, 427:240, chomsky-on-anti-politics.webm)

Watch this video.


 No.13505

>>13495

He was right, though. You outright ignored half his post, the part where he was talking about the infeasability of restricting corporations. Instead, you talked about how corporations are corrupt, amoral entities by nature, an argument which he defeated before you even brought it up, by mentioning that corporations, unlike governments, simply can't get away with using force.


 No.13516

>>13496

This poster is correct.

Also, fuck Comcast. Their affairs with government are so blatant, it's disgusting.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/the-comcast-fcc-revolving-door/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Attwell_Baker

>In mid-May 2011, four months after voting to support the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal, Baker accepted a job with Comcast as "senior vice president of governmental affairs for NBC Universal" beginning June 3

Absolutely disgusting.


 No.13517

File: 1449083162107-0.jpg (51.84 KB, 720x698, 360:349, koch_bros_muh_evil_capital….jpg)

File: 1449083162123-1.jpg (100.84 KB, 2048x527, 2048:527, bernie_sanders_muh_koch_br….jpg)

>>13503

>Chomsky

He's a good linguist, but his political opinions are just that, opinions. Shit opinions at that.

>anti-politics are things in politics I don't like

>corporations aren't as beholden to their workers as they are to their consumers, this makes them tyrannical

>governments can't be downsized that is simply an evil plot

>governments largesse cannot be fought because then it might help evil plotters

This hurt to listen to. Also,

>muh Koch brothers


 No.13519

Its almost like youre intentionally ignoring the NAP? The answer is pretty axiomatic if you just consider the use of violence.


 No.13521

>>13505

>can't get away with using force

>thus not amoral

Jesus fuck you people are dense. That's non-sequitur. Corporations screw people over without the use of any force. Coercion isn't forceful.


 No.13523

>>13519

Why would anyone give a single shit about some stupid rules you retards made up?


 No.13527


 No.13528

>>13523

Why would people give a single shit about stupid rules you made up?

The NAP is a statement about human behavior when you remove outliers, not a rule.


 No.13539

>>13523

So in a free market a corp can't peddle snake-oil and screw someone out of their life because they trusted the snake-oil manufacturer instead of the medical cancer treatment?


 No.13540

>>13539

>So in a free market a corp can't peddle snake-oil and screw someone out of their life because they trusted the snake-oil manufacturer instead of the medical cancer treatment?

Depends on the community.

In Libertarianland, probably not.

In AnCapistan, it would be up to the community.

A judge might rule that the person was an idiot, or they might rule that the corporation abused the victim under common law (depending on circumstance) and thus allow the lawsuit.


 No.13544

File: 1449127123719.png (238.06 KB, 394x300, 197:150, 1410905520331.png)

>>13539

Libertarians have this delusion that somehow people could pressure powerful private corporations to act according to their liking, but they cannot do the same with democratic institutions.


 No.13545

>>13544

It's not a matter of doing it via democratic institutions, faggot.

It's a matter of what else will those democratic institutions do?

Shit, I'm drunk and I understand this!


 No.13548

>>13545

You clearly don't.


 No.13551

>>13548

Feel free to enlighten me? Otherwise fuck off.


 No.13556

>>13517

Funny thing is, I still hate the Koch Brothers for profiting from eminent domain, but I now acknowledge that liberals have no reason to hate them.

>>13544

The difference is that democratic institutions are allowed to resort to coercion, but private corporations aren't. Thus, institutions like the congress have zero incentive to do something right, unlike corporations. Sure, a corporation could, theoretically, extort someone, mafia style, but the government does that regularly. Hell, it's the entire gig of the government that it just takes what it wants without asking for permission. Even the horror scenario you liberals like to paint is not as bad as the status quo.


 No.13559

>>13539

>They could, and then subsequently be sued for fraud in a private court. The details of historical competitive court systems are fascinating and far too elaborate to cover here, but available online if you seek them. There is no question that this occurred and was effective in providing restitution and discouraging foul play.


 No.13563

>>13556

But what prevents corporations from resorting to coercion? It's clearly not ethical considerations or three letter acronyms. Could it be the threat of government coercion?


 No.13564

>>13563

Really think that through.

>People for whatever reason don't like Corporation. Many stop buying things from Corporation.

>Profits fall. Corporation has less money.

>Corporation pays thugs to go force people to pay them.

>They must send more thugs than there are People who they push around; thus consuming more money than they take in.

>People now like Corporation less. More of them stop buying from Corporation.

>Profits fall further. Cycle continues.

The only thing that can interrupt this is:

>People continue to willingly support Corporation despite disapproving of it because they believe it is necessary, and would not consider resorting to or establishing a competing corporation.

And that's what you call a state: it's a shared delusion and nothing more.

You can't sustain the mass use of coercion unless the people who vastly outnumber you and whose existence you depend upon believe that you should. It's that simple.


 No.13569

>>13563

>But what prevents corporations from resorting to coercion?

1. The threat of falling out of the favor of the public, as the other anon described.

2. The threat of losing profit because their coercive methods cost more than they bring in. Believe it or not, tanks aren't cheap.

3. The threat of being sued or otherwise brought to justice.

>It's clearly not ethical considerations

You do know not everyone working for big corporations is a ruthless, amoral sociopath, right?

>Could it be the threat of government coercion?

Do you statists always have to be this smug? Riddle me this, who is to stop the government from being coercive? Don't tell me it's the public, we already went over this.


 No.13584

>>13496

Screencapped.


 No.13590

I will tell you one thing, OP

read a fucking book.


 No.13591

>>13564

> Many stop buying things from Corporation.

Let's be honest and admit it: this will never actually happen.


 No.13597

>>13591

Oh, look, it's the old consumers-are-dumb-sheep-narrative. It only works if we assume one of two things:

>PR is completely irrelevant

You said yourself that corporations give to charity for PR reasons. This makes no sense if we assume that corporations would get consumers no matter how loved or hated they are. In fact, every marketing campaign that went beyond the simple presentation of information ("this is X and you can buy it at Y") would be a gigantic waste of money. This view is refuted by one glance at reality.

>Corporations have brainwashed us

And I do mean "brainwashed". As in, they have complete control over our minds. Considering that you're bitching about them, and many people I know are bitching about them, and fucking EVERYONE is bitching about them, I'd say they don't.


 No.13598

>>13597

>consumers-are-dumb-sheep-narrative

wat

They are not going to stop buying from Corporation just because it's evil. If it's cheaper and the victims are far away, nobody will give a fuck.


 No.13601

>>13598

>They are not going to stop buying from Corporation just because it's evil. If it's cheaper and the victims are far away, nobody will give a fuck.

If you seriously believe that not even a few people will stop buying from a corporation that openly uses slavery and robbery, then I don't see why you don't propose nuking this entire planet and everyone on it.


 No.13602

>>13598

And besides, you do know that just recently, a pharma company got stomped into the ground because it raised the costs of AIDS-medication, right? So much about how little humans care about their fellow beings. The problem is not that humans are too egotistical, it's that we give our sympathy too easily away.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]