Government or Corporations?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Oni~, Aug 17, 2015.

  1. #1 Oni~, Aug 17, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2015
    I was having a discussion with a friend who is a staunch Libertarian. Like several others, he was under the impression that if the government were abolished or severely reduced in power, more competition would be allowed and it would lead to a truly free market in the United States.

    Without advocating pro or contra government, I see where he is coming from and why several people believe this is how things would go down. However...


    To me, this view seems to underestimate the role corporations would play in such a scenario. Many anti-gov people are so because they claim the government has been bought a long time ago. A view that makes a lot of sense considering how many dirty politicians have already been caught, and just how much lobbyist activity and corporate candidate funding there is.

    If in this scenario Corps====>Buy Government=====>Controls People for Corps benefit, then

    If we remove "Government" does it not seem logical that corps will bend over backward and use all the funding, connections, and resources at their disposal to simply adjust the grip to directly control the population instead of needing a middle man? Has this not been amply demonstrated by just how much marketing there is in every aspect of daily life?


    So, not really making a statement as much as asking for opinions. If government is abolished or severely diminished, how will corporate power be checked? Are they simply going to fade away and give up all the power, revenue, and status they currently enjoy because Joe Sixpack is now competing with them?
    (We are also assuming there isn't complete anarchy)

     
  2. This is a tough call. Personally I have very little faith in these people who say if we just cut taxes and regulations it will lead to great things. Look at what happened to our television news after the fcc massively reduced restrictions on cable news and dropped the fairness doctrines leading to Fox News/msnbc circle jerk we have today. Look at what happened to the financial markets after the gov cut regulation/took hands off approach and the development of credit default swaps/other methods to allow banks to skirt all of the existing regulation which essentially forced banks to hold a certain amount of capital for all the deals they made. Eventually banks found ways around this and wouldn't have had any issues until the housing market collapsed and they were forced to pay out massive debts they never believed they would actually have to pay out and had barely any money set aside to pay these obligations. Queue Joe taxpayer giving the banks a shit ton of money in bailouts so they can pay financial obligations that they set aside basically no money for. I'm not saying gov could perfectly stop the crisis but they could have taken more steps like regulating credit default swaps to ensure banks weren't using it as a means to skirt rules that forced banks to hold a certain percentage of a financial obligation in case shit goes bottom up. To me it seems deregulating the financial sector is a complete step in the wrong direction. What we need is more strict effective regulation that doesn't allow banks to continue the sketchy practices that helped spark this mess. Check out this four part documentary series from frontline if you're interested about the financial collapse and the lack of regulation that lead to it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/.

    Lastly, people say if we cut taxes it will lead to wealthy people hiring more Americans. Well this sounds good in theory it seems to play out very differently in real life. I strongly feel that raising or cutting taxes, unless it's in a very dramatic way, has less of an effect on the economy than a lot of other factors although definitely is still a factor. I would say automation, the Internet, and globalization are three factors that have a much stronger impact on the economy than taxation. If you look at the bush tax cuts among other states that have cut taxes, there seems to be very little corresponding economic growth. The problem with a lot of tax cuts is that often the money will go to people who have no intention of spending the money. If you are worth a billion dollars it's unlikely that getting a couple 100,000 is going to make you go on a shopping spree. If you have a billion dollars I would bet dollars to donuts that what you spend is more based on need/desire than your flux of income and won't really be effected by a tax cut unless it's a crazy large tax cut.
     
  3. The government itself is a corporation.

    The libertarian mindset is about allowing the people to directly take responsibility for justice; because the government doesn't.

    Its not about removing rules regulations and protection. Its about shifting the power from the corporations (government) to the people (democracy)

    -Yuri
     
  4. #4 Oni~, Aug 17, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 17, 2015
    That's my question though. The Libertarian request is to get rid of government as much as possible so various forms of freedom can ensue.

    If we assume this is magically granted, what stands in the way of total corporate rule?

    If Corps control Gov and you get rid of Gov, you still have Corps, except now the one entity that could have possibly checked them has disappeared or diminished.

    For the record, I'm not disagreeing with a lot of what the libertarian view is, I just find they seem to be omitting or at least underestimating what happens to corporate rule without government. What about the fading or extinguishing of government even remotely guarantees the fall of corporate rule?


     
  5. I think you overestimate how much power people would really have. I think it's easy to think that if there was no government there would be less coercion and force but this is a false notion in my opinion. What's to stop companies from fucking over their employers if there is no court to sue for wrongdoing? What's going to stop hospitals from charging outrageous prices if they know a patient has no feasible alternative? In the real world companies have a lot of control in our lives because we rely on their products to live and often their businesses to get hired. If there is no entity to watch corporations they become the sole heir of influence and control in our world. The problem with this is that companies don't have empathy they only think about their bottom line. This means more shades businesses practices will inevitably happen if there is absolutely no watchdog.

    You can say that people wouldn't shop at those companies but that's complete and utter bullshit. The American consumer is so short sighted. We all know that Wal Mart had had several factories (sweatshops) in other countries that have burned down because of terrible working condition but this does not stop most people from going to Wal Mart when they need something because it is so convenient. This is why the counter argument of the consumer will boycott businesses who have shitty business practices is a false narrative because businesses today that do shitty things aren't generally penalized by the consumer. Also, if a majority of businesses start to do sketchier businesses practices then it becomes impossible for the consumer to not support shitty businesses when they need to buy things. Ultimately, I don't think minarchy or anarchy would be a hell hole, and I think society would still function decently. However, I think without a government we would see more fraudulent business practices and stuff would be slightly worse off.
     
  6. coporations are a government creation, the could not exist without government. The government grants them limited liability that allows them to get away with horrors that would not be permissable in free market capitalism.
     
  7. I think you are making the classic mistake of confusing the fact that THESE corporations work with THIS government, with corporations being a government spawn period.



    Most, if not all other nations in the world have a government. None of those governments are as bought up as the American one. Yes, there certainly is corruption everywhere, but no other nation has a mass scale lobbyist, campaign contribution, and across the board linkage from big money to big government.

    I think this comes back to my original point. Anti gov people are convinced that removing Gov will result in a reduction of corporate power, because >currently< corps have bought enough of the gov to be able to manipulate it at will. The not-so-subtle point that gets missed there is that they did it because they had to. It was, in fact, an obstruction to their otherwise totalitarian rule.



    I have yet to hear one plan that feasibly outlines how corps will majorly lose power once gov is abolished.

     
  8. Government is evil no matter what its form period it is about the aristocracy ruling over the serfs. Corporations could not exist without government granting them absolution from the violation of individual rights. From CEOs to stockholders all should be hel accountable for the corporation they work for or invest in, if a corporation pollutes an individuals property or violates an individuals rights they should be held accountable. You are the same kind of person that would be defending the rights of a monach if we lived a couple hundred years in the past.

     


  9. I think you misunderstand me. I am not in any shape or form "defending the rights" of a corporation/monarch.

    I am raising the question: If we abolish government or significantly diminish it. What about current American corporations suggests they would wither in power with the government removed. Why wouldn't / couldn't they simply readjust and use their massive resources to develop a new, government unhindered grasp over the American population?

    It seems to me people are focusing on how the corporations >currently< have a grasp on people via government, and therefore they assume that with government diminished, corporations would become powerless.

    I see removing government as nothing but a readjustment to corporate planning and them having total control unhindered by a middle man.




     
  10. What happens when Donald Trump colludes with the Waltons to create the "TrumpMart Police and Monetary Agency"?


    Anyway, all you are proposing is a scenario where a minor reset button is pressed, and eventually we are back to where we are today. There is fundamentally nothing stopping a corporation because we have capitalist markets which breed political inequality through their economic inequality, TrumpMart doesn't care they just polluted some land because their agency is vastly superior.
     
  11. Yes, it's true. The reset button effects will last exactly 1 millisecond.
     
  12. #12 Techno mechanical fox, Aug 18, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2015
    I think that if the government did not exist, one of two things would happen. large corporations would just start fighting each other physically. Instead of walmart trying to compete with a smaller store's prices, they could just firebomb the other store for much less money. Same thing in reverse for the smaller store trying to compete with walmart.


    The other possibility is that large corporations take advantage of anti-trust laws to just form huge trusts. Since this seems to pop up a lot with the current government, the CN BNSF merger for example, it is not a stretch to think it would happen without the government.
     
  13. So long as we the people must buy our products from stores, big business will always have a place in society. Government is there to ensure that we the people, do not get screwed over by pricing schemes. Just ask OPEC who they sell gas to and why.
     
  14. your question is rooted in a misunderstanding.

    All services provided by government are there for a reason.

    Libertarians don't want to allow people to commit crimes and infringe on rights.

    Its all about taxes really. Taxes are theft by definition. How can one fight evil with evil? Its inherently flawed.

    Ill use my favorite example : environmentalism.

    People seem to be of the delusion that libertarians for example, want to allow corporations to destroy the world because that is freedom.

    This is an extremely disrespectful strawman perpetuated by statist propaganda.

    Environmental damage is wide spread. If a company pollutes the air, guess what? He has caused damage to ALL his neighbors property and is liable for damages and possibly jail time. Its really not hard.

    Same with exploitation. Libertarians are for workers rights, just not the traditional meathod of corporations lobbying, taxing, and dictating said rights issued by government.inc

    -Yuri
     
  15. Who would decide he has to go to jail?

    Who would decide he has to compensate his neighbours?
     
  16. My problem with libertarian train of thought is not that I think they are bad people who want to pollute. I think most libertarians truly believe that government doesn't have a major effect on stopping bad behavior in industry and morally shouldn't force people to pay taxes. At the end of the day a tenet of libertarian train of thought is to cut regulation. Your argument is well I can sue them because they are polluting on my land. The problem is you don't realize how any legal system is going to work when you are going against a big corporation. They are going to slam you hard and it is extremely hard to prove wrongdoing in cases like pollution. This notion that if a company just spills some waste they will automatically pay for their injustices is based of an idealized notion of our current legal framework. Regulation of these industries at least gives the common person a chance at fighting the corruption of big businesses. In addition things like meat restrictions are extremely important and cutting them would increase the amount of food borne illness we experience which costs us a crazy amount of money in hospitalization and recovery costs. So no I don't believe libertarians are bad people, I think they are doing what they believe is going to lead to the most moral society. I think however that they seriously underestimate this idea of tragedy of the commons when you don't have one authoritative force who is there to try and regulate it, however much they fail sometimes. So in summary regulation isn't perfect but it's better than the Wild West with no restrictions or regulations on business practices. There's a reason we have instituted a large amount of the regulations we have over the last 100 years and it's because we don't want to go back to 1920s era bullshit. So at the end of the day I don't believe libertarians want to allow people/businesses to infringe on rights or commit crimes, but I think their policies will unintentionally lead to more of that. I think how much more is up for debate, but I think more corruption is an inevitability in a pure free market system. If I was a a libertarian I would embrace this and just say that the amount of corruption would be minimal and is worth ending taxation collected from people through force. However, most libertarians seem to deny this pretty obvious reality and pretend that a monarchist society would be a utopia dreamland where all corporations suddenly become good natured and won't pollute/price gouge/screw over employees more than they do now.
    My problem with libertarian train of thought is not that I think they are bad people who want to pollute. I think most libertarians truly believe that government doesn't have a major effect on stopping bad behavior in industry and morally shouldn't force people to pay taxes. At the end of the day a tenet of libertarian train of thought is to cut regulation. Your argument is well I can sue them because they are polluting on my land. The problem is you don't realize how any legal system is going to work when you are going against a big corporation. They are going to slam you hard and it is extremely hard to prove wrongdoing in cases like pollution. This notion that if a company just spills some waste they will automatically pay for their injustices is based of an idealized notion of our current legal framework. Regulation of these industries at least gives the common person a chance at fighting the corruption of big businesses. In addition things like meat restrictions are extremely important and cutting them would increase the amount of food borne illness we experience which costs us a crazy amount of money in hospitalization and recovery costs. So no I don't believe libertarians are bad people, I think they are doing what they believe is going to lead to the most moral society. I think however that they seriously underestimate this idea of tragedy of the commons when you don't have one authoritative force who is there to try and regulate it, however much they fail sometimes. So in summary regulation isn't perfect but it's better than the Wild West with no restrictions or regulations on business practices. There's a reason we have instituted a large amount of the regulations we have over the last 100 years and it's because we don't want to go back to 1920s era bullshit. So at the end of the day I don't believe libertarians want to allow people/businesses to infringe on rights or commit crimes, but I think their policies will unintentionally lead to more of that. I think how much more is up for debate, but I think more corruption is an inevitability in a pure free market system. If I was a a libertarian I would embrace this and just say that the amount of corruption would be minimal and is worth ending taxation collected from people through force. However, most libertarians seem to deny this pretty obvious reality and pretend that a monarchist society would be a utopia dreamland where all corporations suddenly become good natured and won't pollute/price gouge/screw over employees more than they do now.
     
  17. court of law.

     
  18. Court of law means cops.

    I'm out.
    Fuck you Libertarians for getting my hopes up. :)
     
  19. whoa there don't be hatin

    -Yuri
     
  20. #20 BluntedUp, Aug 21, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2015
    This country would cease to exist without a government. Too many people want what they want and nothing more. The government is full of frauds but wherever there is people there will be this issue.


    As cool as it is to hate the government today we'd be no where without them. All the joys we have today is due to the government. They paved the way for american corporations to do what they do today.


    Without the advances of the government from 100 years ago to now this might not even be a country still.


    Lol before all these regulations this is what we had
    [​IMG]



    Kids, Men, and Women being maimed by machinery in piss poor conditions.
     

Share This Page