Is this true? Can corporations do nothing to you without government?
I believe it is true. And if it is, this is the 1 idea that would instantly change any liberal/democrat to a libertarian. Everytime I see them speak, they are always talking about the damage corporations can do to the middle class, to the poor. They have a deep, deep fear of big corporations.
But without government, corporations can do nothing to people.
This is an exceedingly simplistic way of looking at it but it is in a way true. Corporations can’t use force against you, they can’t force you into anything that you didn’t agree to yourself.
With this being said many of the ‘evils’ that liberals still decry could still exist without the government, so long as we forget legitimate economics and political theory:
Destruction of the environment
Poor wages
Centralization of wealth in the hands of corporations and general inequality
Racism/sexism in the workplace
Very hard working of employees
Severe economic depressions/large bubbles
Low standards of living for much of the population
Monopolies (really the cause of many of the others)
High unemployment
Lack of adequate healthcare provision
Rampant consumerism and speculative consumption.
These are all theoretically possible without government intervention in the market place thanks to actions of large corporations. I do not agree with all of these, the trick is to point is the flaws and how the government helps to increase the severity of EVERY ONE OF THESE FACTORS.
Can’t have one without the other (I’d go as far to say the pendelum swings both ways in the U.S.)
[quoteuser=“Wiki”]
A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members.
[/quote]
As Neo touched on, it really depends on what you mean by “do to you”. Define that.
“Destruction of the environment”
That seems to be the only thing they could do to you. None of the others make any logical sense.
This is also the one liberals will point to.
What if a large existing chemical plant pollutes the air you breathe even more then they do now without government?
What would you do? And what if people talked to their representative and they said, they don’t agree with your assesment of the pollutants you say they are releasing. And what if they hired alot of security, so you couldn’t even get into the place?
A territorial monopoly of the elements of coercion – a corporate military agency (CMA) can do whatever it likes within the geographic region that it holds sway.
The propensity of the elements of coercion to coalesce within a particular geographic region (after all security is best served when in proximity to the customer) is one of the reasons why anarchist societies always degenerate into authoritarian systems.
Hence, the most effective system to guarantee freedoms is an unrestricted capitalist structure in every sector of the economy except armed force. The best example of this is a liberal democracy in which the elements of societal coercion are intentionally balanced, limited, decentralized and made transparent, while all other sectors of the economy are allowed to form natural monopolies which can be easily underminded by competition or substitution goods and services. For obvious reasons, there are no substitution services for security, at least none today.
In the future, technological advances will enable the market to decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent the elements of coercion – however at this time no such technology exists.
"
A territorial monopoly of the elements of coercion – a corporate military agency (CMA) can do whatever it likes within the geographic region that it holds sway.
The propensity of the elements of coercion to coalesce within a particular geographic region (after all security is best served when in proximity to the customer) is one of the reasons why anarchist societies always degenerate into authoritarian systems."
Can you please speak in dumbed down plain english. I’m not that smart. Are you saying there should be a government, but their only function should be an armed force. And the main purpose of that armed force is obviously keep any invaders at bay, but keep other armed forces from forming in the society?
He’s saying that Liberal Democracy is awesome, and that you suck.
“He’s saying that Liberal Democracy is awesome, and that you suck.”
Come on naw…he ain’t sayin dat.
OK, you’ll see.
Centinel wrote:
“… In the future, technological advances will enable the market to decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent the elements of coercion – however at this time no such technology exists.”
ORLY?
OK, you’ll see.
lol. now watch the 20 plus posts, a million snarky comments, and long paragraphs of repetition. Pass th popcorn
Sorry for the wordiness.
In more understandable terms:
anarcharies don’t have any mechanism to deter the establishment of a monopoly of armed force within a specific geographic region,
in contrast, totalitarian regimes are specifically built around establishing, protecting and nurturing a monopoly of armed force,
in contrast, liberal democracy is a society specifically designed to limit, balance, decentralize, and make transparent the elements of armed force in society.
Hence, what I am saying is that if a government is created, it should be based on the intentional division of elements of armed force into relatively equal competing, highly decentralized and transparent component parts.
No need to decentralize, balance, or limit other goods and services since microsoft, ford, exxon, et al dont have the means to prevent me from walking away from their statist society. However, when a monopoly has the means to physically deter me from rejecting their schemes – all bets are off.
" anarcharies don’t have any mechanism to deter the establishment of a monopoly of armed force within a specific geographic region,"
So, you’re saying in free societies, too often, there will be a group of people who will arm themselves and they’ll be the only group of people that are armed?
And then, they might prevent anyone else from arming themselves and they also might reek havoc?
Minarchiasts keep forgetting that to get to minarchy from the current state of affairs we’d need such a radical change in ideas that supposed problems with anarchy would really be irrelevant.
+1. Here, here. Radical social change must be accompanied by radical cognitive shifts.
The Renaissance and the Reformation
The Enlightment and the Liberal Revolutions
LSD and the 60’s
etc.
I bet corporations would lie, cheat, and steal because it isn’t something that is exclusive to corporations (not that I think it would happen very often). People lie, cheat, and steal. People run and work at corporations. Therefore, corporations may lie, cheat, or steal. The government only exacerbates the problem because if a company were to lie, cheat, or steal, people could easily withdraw their funds from the company (and the funds are the life support of a company). People can’t withdraw their funds from the federal government because people believe in the legitimacy of taxation, so even if the government does something they hate, they accept it due to “death and taxes.”
So I guess a liberal would ask what is there to stop the corporation from exploiting somebody and the simple answer is that it is uneconomic to do so. The American military can’t even contain Iraq (the Iraq War is greater than the GDP of Iraq I believe). Extracting taxes or forcing people to pay for something is harder and more costly than most people realize. The only reason it’s cheap, again, is because of ideology.
The government only exacerbates the problem because if a company were to lie, cheat, or steal, people could easily withdraw their funds from the company (and the funds are the life support of a company). --eric080
A territorial monopoly of armed forced would demand tribute (taxes). Hence, statism is born. That is why anarchism has degenerated into statism in all cases.
So I guess a liberal would ask what is there to stop the corporation from exploiting somebody and the simple answer is that it is uneconomic to do so. – eric080
If it is ‘uneconomic’ to exploit someone – then why have a corporate military agency in the first place ?
The American military can’t even contain Iraq (the Iraq War is greater than the GDP of Iraq I believe).–eric080
The American military is not trying to contain Iraq – if we wanted Iraq for oil or to subjegate the citizenry we could do it for a fraction of the current costs by indiscriminate violence in the same manner used by those who gained and held power.
The American military is trying to democratize and civilize Iraq with as few casualties as possible – a very expensive and difficult proposition. Moreover, America does not use weaponry or tactics that are inexpensive, lethal and effective because these tactics and practices are inhumane. The USA spends tens of billions of dollars yearly to develop and utilize personnel and weapon systems in as non-lethal and humane manner as possible and still accomplish the mission. To provide you with an example, we could easily accomplish virtually all bombing missions with huge dumb iron bombs dropped indiscriminately into population centers – however, the US military uses very expensive smart weaponry designed to minimize casualties under very restrictive conditions.
Extracting taxes or forcing people to pay for something is harder and more costly than most people realize. The only reason it’s cheap, again, is because of ideology. – eric080
It doesnt appear to be to difficult to force you and everyone else on this site to pay taxes, why would it be hard for a territorial monopoly of armed force in a private-property society ?
The bottom line is that societal actors that are unable to obtain desired ends by legitimate or peaceful means will eventually get around to using coercion to obtain those desired ends.
Minarchiasts keep forgetting that to get to minarchy from the current state of affairs we’d need such a radical change in ideas that supposed problems with anarchy would really be irrelevant. – Wheylous
How about an economic bill of rights to complement our current political and civil bill of rights ?
Balanced budget amendment.
LImit government spending to 10% or less of GDP.
3)Require a supermajority to raise taxes.
Require a simple majority to lower taxes.
All taxes are limited to a 2-4 year period before they must be passed again by supermajority.
Prohibit the Federal government from regulating any commerce
Prohibit the Federal government from picking winners and losers in the economy
citizen-politicians meet only once or twice a year.
term limits
Only 3 Federal agencies – defense, justice, and state
Except for 6 and 7, most of these initiatives are being openly and more seriously discussed then the sentiment a decade ago.
So, you’re saying in free societies, too often, there will be a group of people who will arm themselves and they’ll be the only group of people that are armed?
And then, they might prevent anyone else from arming themselves and they also might reek havoc? --limitgov
I think a ‘free’ society will devolve into what we currently have in the international community – a anarchic collection of self-interested territorial monopolies of coercion or armed force.
Some would be violent and expansionist, but I am guessing most would be relatively peaceful – similar to what we have today.
Btw, the reason why we have relative peace in most quarters of the globe is two-fold: 1) liberal democracies are inherently peaceful to each other and 2) most nations are well armed making it a risky proposition to invade them.
I suspect that the most efficient and profitable CMA’s would be the least likely to be tested. In contrast, CMA’s that were unprofitable would see their holdings/customers decline over time. Eventually, 99% of free market entities go out of business, when that happens to a CMA that maintained security for a particular group of customers or investors that would be somewhat catastrophic for those customers or investors. Not much different than what happens in our current anarchic international community.
but if the threat of armed force being used against innocents in society wasn’t a serious concern - then why would a free society need a corporate military agency (CMA) ?