If not the State, then Wal-Mart?

Economics Political Theory
1

I talked with somebody today that stated why a Nation-State needs to intervene. The discussion hovered mainly around this point:

A - If not the Nation-State, then it will be Wal-Mart running the geography of America and they will control the police and courts, and corporations can be just as corrupt as a Nation-State.

My counter-argument:

Counter to A - I don’t see that happening now for in the free market corporations are not that large. The free market doesn’t give legitimacy to a monopoly enterprise that would, in that instance, be just another Nation-State all over again just given a new name called Wal-Mart and not the U.S. Also the corporations that do become very large currently (which is still far from a single corporation being the entire State as in the above hypothetical), do, for one, cause they use the force of the State to regulate all competitors (a corruption of the free market). Secondly, the force of an armed gun to get the business deals exchanged (the tax collector handing tax money over to bailed out institutions which is not something new and has been happening for decades). Thus, the only way these very large institutions can get ahead is to use the force of the largest Empire this world has ever seen, and to do so by corrupting the free market.

I think the free market is the exchanges of valued goods and ideas which happens with the principles of property rights. Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are still the free market, but a free market that is corrupted.

So the fear by this man had more to do with a corporation being like a State, meaning, the corporation will monopolize goods and break the principle of property rights. By breaking the principle of property rights, what the fear is in this action, is that nobody would be able to stop this corporation from breaking laws and violating aggressively against people being able to have the money to see a doctor, have enough food, etc… That seems to be the main fear I see people having in trying to make the leap in their thinking in understanding a free market. It is they fear nobody will be able to stop a large wealthy corporation from being criminal and violating the property rights of each individual. That last sentence is the basic fear maybe? So therefore he went on to state that since their will always be (he assumed quite a bit here on the morality of people but that’s another issue for the moment right now) a government whether it be 1) a government an individual can vote into criminal power and thus maybe make it not as criminal. 2) or a corporation like Wal-Mart being in power owning the police and judges and you can’t vote on what they do so there is no chance to change their actions. So I guess the conversation lead to a lesser of two evils in his eyes.

I pointed out there are a bunch of hypotheticals here, and also made mention that in a free market the competition between rising businesses keeps any one business from becoming a monopoly that forces out any other competitor that the consumer would have choice with to exchange.

What do other people think?

2

If a free market means everyone can compete, then why would a single corporation exist without competitors in a free market?

Corporations cannot have monopolies on justice, protection etc without legislative monopoly. Legislative monopoly can only come from government.

Monopoly is not something corporations do. It is something the state does.

These are the key facts to impress on people. You have to get through people’s doublethink. Trying to make a bunch of arguments from different directions doesn’t help the listener achieve a paradigm shift. You have to strike at the roots not the branches, if you want to communicate effectively.

The simpler your argument, the harder it is to defeat.

3

Your response is much longer than his claim, while usually it should be the other way around. (Extremely complicated theories can be refuted in a few very short statements.)

If someone makes a claim like that, just force them to explain why they believe it to be true. Usually they will have no reason.

4

i characterise the original ‘anarchy>corporationstate’ position as argument ad sci-fi

i.e. truth known by reflection on the teachings of science-fictional works.

5

Obviously we need government to save us from feudalism. Our benign dictators know so much better than us, and are not at all inclined to abusing their power (nor of course are they to admitting they know next to nothing about anything.)

6

Very good advice. I did leave this out of the post, but my argument did keep coming back “What does the government produce to share in the market?” He did say nothing, but it will control corruption in corporations and that was his basic point I found out. Actually when I dug deeper, his basic premise was people are immoral. So then I knew his whole paradigm leaped from that assumption of his. Next question of mine was, so if people are basically immoral and tend to be criminal and you want a government full of people that will be basically immoral and tend to be criminal how does that work? I also countered his premise by stating most Americans are not criminals that is a fact. And I leave the morality question to God or what have you.

Thanks for the input. I’m going to think about what you said about monopoly and the need for legislation.

7

True. His argumentation was longer. It has actually been a hours of discussion yesterday and today. The discussion did boil down to his premise is people are immoral by nature. As I then pointed out it is a fact that most Americans are not criminals. He’s now asking me to define criminal and morality which is leading into property rights. So since we last talked he’s now asking me what “property rights” mean and what is law, so, maybe he’s starting to understand.

8

Yeah, at this point in the argument I said he had anxiety. He then went on to say you have to think about the future and how this will all turn out. I let him know I’m actually talking about what is happening right now in real-time and a discussion of the free market isn’t a fantasy what if. I guess the only what if I would bring up is, what if laws were actually enforced. Government probably would be forced to close shop for I don’t see anything a government official legislates and structures that isn’t a crime against property rights. Unless that government official is actually ridding government aka following the law.

9

In the dream who would maintain the freeness of the free market ? We have seen what free-marketeers do, how in 20 years they organized absolute monopolies.

Perhaps Coke, Pepsi, William Gates, Wal-Mart should be lectured on how much better it would be for them if, instead of monopolies, we had thousands of one-man operations; if, instead of 3 car makers, we had 48 automobile manufaturers in the United States; if, instead of 4 oil corporations, we had 53 producers; if, instead of slum-lords, property developers, everyone had an acre to live on, free of mortgage, free of rent; etc. It could be, you know, that they never heard of and do not know about the free market, and that is why they are organizing and maintaining monopolies.

People are corrupt to the core, and greedy; and the most corrupt and most greedy will climb to the top, and gather the wealth to himself. That is what happened in evil empire Rome; that is what the incas did; that is what happening/happened to us, under evil empire America.
Job number 1 of every corporation and every enterpriser is to gain and maintain larger market share. There can be only one winner in the competition, and by defeat, merger or agreement the market will be controlled by monopoly. Coke-Pepsi will not see the light that the soft-drink market should be populated by hundreds of operators, producing cheaper, better products. Toll-road corporations will not build roads just to compete and to bring down the price to cost.

If somebody more powerful than them will not tell these monopolists to maintain a free market, they will not see the light, they will not come to their senses, they will not become religious and turn from their wicked ways. If some brutal force does not stop it, the liquid metal monster will always re-constitute itself… Unfortunately governments are made up of corruptable people, too, so it is not too often that we have a good government (Philip #4 of France was good, Napoleon tried, Mussolini tried

The participants of the Boston Tea Party dumped the tea in the harbour because the Wal-Mart of the day, supported by government subsidy, way under cut their high prices. On its own, the Company would never have noticed the error of its ways.

In old Israel, before they lost their minds in Samuel 8:7, there was a period of quiet, they followed God’s instructions and lived in an agricultural society, without government and corporations; not since.

10

Just tell them to fuck off.

11

protection:

yea, and verily, the lord of MisesForum spoke and said unto the masses; “let there be nonsense upon this thread; that their words shalt confuse and confound them”. And so it came to pass.

12

The monopoly is they are associates of the government. It is fascism. Government and corporations doing deals not in the free market but in their own corrupt system in which they make all the rules for their own benefit.

Hmmm, most Americans and I would say most people are not criminals. That is a fact. Check the prison list. And even those numbers would drop if the government actually enforced laws and not their political whims.

Controlled by government creating the monopoly. They lobby government and government makes the rules to play in their favor. That’s not a free market.

see answer above

somebody more powerful? Like a dictator that will monopolize the free market.

First you say “supported by government” and then you say “On its own”? huh?[:^)]

I don’t see how this argues with the free market in your line of thinking unless you mean God, according to your interpretation, said I can’t negotiate and barter (using dollars, gold, what have you) to exchange for a TV, car, a bag of flour, etc…, for if that’s what your saying, then that’s absurd. So I’m only allowed to sit here and hope an apple rolls my way.

13

If a corporation gets control over police and courts and imposes it’s will, wouldn’t that just be a government?

14

Somebody more powerful… Hmmm…

Whoops: CONSUMERS

15

Dude, you just made my day.

“Mussolini tried”

Epic lulz

16

It would also have to be able to deny anyone from setting up a new court and police force to qualify as a government.

17

Yeah forgot to mention that. The point being though is people fear corporations because they will tak over and invoke tyranny, or whatever. No matter what though, it would be less tyrannical than government, it has to be by definition. If not it is no longer a corporation and just a form of government. Corporations go away without productivity, helping others, and satisfing people’s needs, governments… not so much.

18

“Should”? According to whom?

In your opinion. And that includes you. Kthxbai.

19

What is amazing is how humans lived tens of thousands of years without any formal government, thousands of years more with less centralized governments, and have had some religion, philosophy, science, and values aquired all without the aid of government (unless the wheel was made due to a subsidy on blocks). ANother amazing thing is how there are tribal species (bees, wolves, etc) all over the planet w/o the “blessings of democracy”. See even dumb animals can co exist w/o going brutal on their own communities.

I wonder how we didn’t go extinct? Maybe because we started out as a social democracy and had fair representation, equal opportunity families and employment, regulations on fire, a drug administration to make sure the water and meat was up to standards, an animal rights group demanding the undomestication of animals (early human wore biodegradable non animal clothing), and properly licenesd hunters and gatherers.