I don’t understand where this objection comes from. This must be one of those things that they are indoctrinated with in schools. I’ve argued with many people about if a libertarian/AE society would be possible and many seem to think that such a society would give all power to CEOs. When I explain to them that CEOs would not still get corporate welfare they change their tune… but they still have this initial bias about libertarian thought or austrian economic thought. Where do they get taught this? Why do they think this? If anything having an anarcho-libertarian or just a plain libertarian society with AE rules we’d be able to place lots of limits on them. Yet these people seem to think that we would be giving full control to CEOs… I just wonder how this idea got about.
Ignorance.
Hollywood and Government indoctrination centers / prison (school).
Stems from envy? But also false sense of moral high ground.
I think it’s because they don’t see that companies use the state to give them power.
They see the state as some system which is meant to meet the objective of keeping few people from having power over society. They assume it is the only thing that keeps few people from having power over all people. Without government, few powerful people would control everything. CEOs are seen as the most powerful people, so they must be the ones who would run society.
Why would the power go to the CEOs? Wouldn’t it go the owners/shareolders who hire/fire the CEO?
I don’t think you’d give power to anyone, I think they’d take it. Or convince people to give it to them.
That’s what leaders do. If, for instance, there were still wage inequalities in an an-cap society, people might be inclined to clamor for wage controls. Minimum wage laws and such. If that didn’t help, perhaps they’d demand a safety net for the unemployed (unemployment relief, medicaid, welfare.)
Now, the former founders of this an-cap society might forestall these developments, but in the end, whatever constitution you guys came up with would eventually be seen as just a piece of paper by some as ours is now.
And then someone will have the brilliant idea of running political campaigns asking for contributions in order to start up a government. Naturally, the people with the most money would be the obvious targets of this campaign. You might say “but they’re not allowed to start a government!!” Says who?
All one needs to start a government is majority consent and an army. Any given CEO could conceivably get both. It’s not that I think any an-cap follower would just hand over power to the CEOs or to anyone for that matter. The problem is that you guys won’t always be around to stop governments from being founded. There aren’t even that many of you now to stop the current government. Libertarianism is a marginal political/economic/philosophical phenomenon, an-cap even more so.
Power has a mind of its own. If it’s not the CEOs who end up with it, it will be someone else. I understand you can make lots and lots of logical arguments against what I’m saying. But until it’s been tried, I don’t think there’s any proof that you won’t end up with oligarchy or feudalism or something like that.
But if we got rid of fiat currency wouldn’t that drastically limit the amount of power CEOs and government has over us? I think the dollar was less elastic that these CEOs would have even less power than under this current system and they would be restrained more by the market… not the other way around. CEOs would forced to be more reactive to the market in this kind of system or go under.
I think they say that the power would go to the CEOs because they fail to overlook the Democratic nature of these bureaucracies. They view corporations as dictatorships controlled by the CEOs and that we only have the illusion of choice. So under a system without government regulation the CEOs would have the power and wouldn’t need to listen to the owners or share holders. That’s why I think they say that.
I see… but couldn’t we have some checks on these CEOs who become too powerful? One of the principles of the libertarian philosophy is that it would be one that follows the NAP… so if these people violate the NAP the people can defend themselves against the CEOs… so even in that situation it’s not like the philosophy is an pacifist philosophy… we could still stop them from becoming too powerful if they decided to try to rule by force.
I’m sure there’s a solution, I have no doubt you’d figure it out. I’m simply saying that the meme I just posted is probably why people think CEOs would end up with all the power.
Don’t we already have a thread full of this stuff from you?
I think you’ve pretty much got it. While appearing to be in control, CEO’s are easily replaced.
What you say is pretty much true, and I’ll agree with you on your points. The focus here isn’t whether the CEOs will run a tyranny, but why the average person think they would.
When speaking in terms of the average person, they don’t even know what the letters in CEO stand for. Nevermind what a central bank is, or what fiat currency is. The only people worth talking to on this topic are people who are inquisitive or even slightly open minded or looking for new ways to blame the establishment. Others are just uninterested, and will stick to comments like “CEOs will run our lives” because they are set in their position and comfortable with it. Learning new things is scary to those people.
He asked why people think what they think and I told him why I think people think what they think. I’ve not said that I agree with them, only that I believe I understand their concerns.
Where?
I cannot find a single sentence in the context of “I think people think.” The first sentence in fact makes it even more obvious.
Why not?