r/AskLibertarians • u/Hairy_Ferret9324 • 24d ago
Philosophy A question about economics.
Hello, I class myself as a strong civil libertarian. When it comes to individuals I feel we shoild have utmost freedoms, liberty, and not be as bound by the government as we currently are. In this regard I am highly libertarian. But where I am curious and start to differ is economically. Libertarians feel the government is the only centralized power that can threaten our liberties and believes in a truly free market. This is where I start to get skeptical. I believe in the free market too, but I do not believe that corporations should have free reign as I feel they are just as much of a threat to our liberty, freedom, and rights as the government can be. Any large centralized power rather it ne public or private that has enough control and money can heavily influence our freedom. And so I must ask, why do libertarians not believe in a more regulated corporate world? Because personally its been proven and shown time and time again that mega corporations can infringe upon our rights just as much as ths government as both can grow too large for their own good and act heavily for their own benefit and power rather that mean oppressing the freedoms of the people or being "good". Thank you, just curious lol.
6
u/Technician1187 24d ago
> Libertarians feel government is the only centralized power that can threaten our liberties…
What makes you think libertarians believe that?
>…but I do not believe corporations should have free reign…
What makes you think libertarians believe corporations should have free reign?
> And so I must ask, why do libertarians not believe in a more regulated corporate world?
We do believe I’m a regulated corporate world, we just don’t think there should be a group of people who have a monopoly on that regulation….monopolies are bad after all.
1
u/Hairy_Ferret9324 24d ago
Just what I have heard in general. To my knowledge libertarians prefer a truly free market with just as little corporate/business regulation as there is individual regulation. That is where I feel my views brand off the libertarian side as I believe corporations cannot be trusted on their own just as the government cannot be trusted. So I believe in more corporation/business regulation and labor protection laws.
2
u/Technician1187 24d ago
> Just what I have heard in general.
Fair. Many “civilian” libertarians can be pretty bad at explaining libertarian positions.
> To my knowledge libertarians prefer a truly free market with just as little corporate/business regulation as there is individual regulation.
Libertarians don’t want a monopoly on regulation and offensive enforcement of regulation; most not only this comes from the people in the state.
What libertarians DO want is private “regulations”. While these may not be exactly the same as regulations you have from the government, their function remains the same. And we already have lots of examples for proofs of concept that currently exist today.
For example, there is no government department the regulates the production of kosher foods. But there are plenty of private organizations that do the inspections and monitoring to make sure the kosher food producers are following the rules so the consumers can trust the products that they buy.
But should the people in government enforce these kosher regulations upon all the people who don’t want kosher foods? Probably not right? That would be a violation of your rights.
My favorite example is in motorcycle helmet safety. The standards that the US DOT use for regulating motorcycle heat safety are very outdated and insufficient for what some consumers desire.
So there are private organizations that do the product testing to give their certification to the helmet so the consumer knows it meets these high standards. Helmet manufacturers even developed helmets specifically designed to meet these higher standards of “private regulation” because that is what some consumers demand.
So it’s not so much that we want “no regulation”, it’s that we want better regulation both from a rights perspective and an economic perspective.
> That is where I feel my views brand off the libertarian side as I believe corporations cannot be trusted…
I don’t think I have ever heard a libertarian say “corporations should be trusted”. The closest you might get to that is when libertarians talk about incentives and how private business incentives more align with consumer wants than government incentives. But that’s still not saying that we should just blindly trust corporations. You are arguing against a strawman here.
> So I believe in more corporation/business regulation and labor protection laws.
You can have laws and protections without having a monopolized state. That is all libertarians are really asking for. It’s not really all that radical.
1
u/Hairy_Ferret9324 24d ago
Your points on private business inspection and monitoring are very true and relevant. I have ran into this in the wild before and I often trust what the private inspection company has to say over the standard/likely outdated government inspection. I must admit, when it comes to the economic/business world I haven't dived too deeply, most of my political philosophy stems from the individual side as I am simply an individual lol. Like I mentioned, when it comes to more individual matters I am essentially a libertarian through and through. Thank you for the information, I will dive more deeply and try to get a better understanding on libertarian economic views. Ive been out of politics for years, but recently have gained a slight interest again. Its just hard to care in this two party system riddled with an annoying amount of pointless identity politics.
5
u/Chrisc46 24d ago
I do not believe that corporations should have free reign
Neither do economic llibertarians.
Fortunately, free markets rarely devolve into monopolies like that. They always (well, nearly always) develop through restrictions on economic liberty or artificial market distortions.
Free markets don't rely on people to be good. They enable pressures to push people towards good. Competitive, cooperative, consumer, and labor pressures all drive mutually beneficial best practice.
3
u/Agitated-Impress7805 24d ago
What are some examples of corporations infringing liberties?
1
u/Hairy_Ferret9324 24d ago
Off the top of my head, I am sure there are more stronger examples. Digital data harvesting/privacy infringement for the sake of advertisement and even nefarious means, flock cameras, and, the major card companies (mastercard & visa) logging the firearms transactions of their cardholders and compiling a registry of gun purchasers.
3
u/Agitated-Impress7805 24d ago
Flock and gun sales surveillance are done in partnership with and/or at the direction of the government.
Data harvesting is mostly voluntary - you don't have to use those services if you don't want to participate. There might be some cases where governments coerce usership but I don't think that's common.
1
u/Hairy_Ferret9324 24d ago
Flock started out mostly private, getting contracts with companies like Lowe's for example. Ive followed flock long before they became popular and have seen their cameras at private businesses for years. The card gun sales was not done with the direction of the government, the card companies did that on their lonesome. Data harvesting is an interesting one, as even if you "opt out" your data is still being harvested. And it reaches the point of which im concerned about, the point of "yeah technically you can just not use it". Such as with modern technology, sure. You can strip out all modern technology. But you'd lose the ability to purchase vehicles made after 2014, use a cellular smartphone, buy modern appliances, and so on. Technically sure, realistically no. Im not saying were at the levels which I am concerned about, but apporaching the beginning? Definitely. Any centralized power neither public or private is an equal threat to liberty. Corporations of the sizes we have today are continuing to prove such. Too much power.
3
u/DrawPitiful6103 24d ago
What exactly are you afraid that a corporation will do to you? Sell you a sandwich or offer you a job?
-3
u/Hairy_Ferret9324 24d ago
What exactly are you afraid that the government will do to you? Give you free Healthcare or pave your road? Come on man lol
3
u/DrawPitiful6103 24d ago
Conscript me. Take all my money via taxation. Use my money to wage wars of aggression. Engage in a genocide. The list continues on indefinitely.
1
u/usmc_BF Classical Liberal 23d ago
"Free" healthcare funded by a threat of physical violence that you can't opt out of, come on man:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
1
u/Hairy_Ferret9324 23d ago
Of course, I agree there. My point was mocking the original comment, thats how he sounded to me. I should've been more obviously sarcastic in my reply. I forget people do genuinely believe in that stuff 😂
3
u/vegancaptain 24d ago
Free markets regins in corporations, not let's them loose. Fierce competition is the most powerful regulation the world has ever seen.
3
3
1
u/drebelx 24d ago
Libertarians feel the government is the only centralized power that can threaten our liberties and believes in a truly free market. This is where I start to get skeptical.
You are correct to feel skeptical if this is true.
I good libertarian is against all people and organizations who threaten liberties, also known as NAP violations (murder, theft, assault, fraud, pollution, battery, enslavement, etc.).
1
1
u/findabetterusername 23d ago
Idk why the comments are so mad. It's been proven throughout history that more centralized and larger entities come to dominate the political and economic spheres. The same would be for corporations too if there is not a government with enough power to stop a megocorporations own power grabs
1
u/usmc_BF Classical Liberal 23d ago
A government has monopoly on the legislative, judiciary and the executive. To break up a country, a corporation would have to foster a national identity separate from the one represented by the government. If they wanted to replace the government, then they wouldn't actually replace it as an institution, but rather get elected, since that is a much simpler way to shift power into their hands. So comparing private companies to a government is not really valid here. (Also the government is also legally a corporation. A public post is a corporation too for instance).
A non governmental entity cannot legalize your death, because a non governmental entity is not the law maker and law executor. A private entity can lobby and argue for a change in law or bribe government officials, 1) bribes are already illegal 2) a political system which makes violation of rights impossible to codify will not allow the private entity to get away with violations of rights 3) violators of rights will always exist and what truly matters is whether the system is moral and rationally justified.
The regulatory mechanism that allows sanctioning violations of rights is the legal system and a proper one allows sanctioning of both private and public entities, which already happens, unless the legal system makes sanctioning impossible through not recognizing an individual right to granting protection to the violator.
At the end of the day, if you live in a social context, you will have to deal with other people, some of who might be those rights violators, doesn't matter if its got a fancy legal name or whether its called Weather Underground
1
u/CatOfGrey LP Voter 20+ yrs. Practical first. Pissed at today's LP. 24d ago
This is where I start to get skeptical. I believe in the free market too, but I do not believe that corporations should have free reign as I feel they are just as much of a threat to our liberty, freedom, and rights as the government can be.
You are correct. This is why property rights apply to corporations, both to protect their own property, but also to stop corporations from damaging individuals. One of the key features on government's 'short list of duties' should be to help enforce individual property rights!
Any large centralized power rather it ne public or private that has enough control and money can heavily influence our freedom.
And centralizing power is generally a result of government interference, not natural economic behavior.
The best case of a natural monopoly was Standard Oil in the late 1800's, and it's not a good example for 'bad monopolies' for many reasons, including that they gave a profound benefit to society (lowered the price of kerosene by 70%!), when they had a high market share they still had no ability to raise prices, and finally, they didn't have market control anyways, as their primary product would be replaced in one generation by electricity.
So you can remove monopolies as a reason - they don't happen under Libertarian societies. That's a government thing.
And so I must ask, why do libertarians not believe in a more regulated corporate world?
Because regulations help create monopolies. More accurately, they reduce competition, and prevent individuals from being compensated when damaged.
mega corporations can infringe upon our rights just as much as ths government as both can grow too large for their own good and act heavily for their own benefit and power rather that mean oppressing the freedoms of the people or being "good".
Regulation allows this. Government interference allows this. Not competition and private property rights.
-1
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 24d ago
Corporations are socialist organizations propped up by the state. Get rid of the state and they will too disappear. You look at the symptoms and refuse to treat the disease.
2
u/Agitated-Impress7805 24d ago
Corporations are how individuals voluntarily pool resources. There are certainly cronyist policies that prop them up in some cases but they wouldn't stop existing in a libertarian system.
1
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 24d ago
The differentia of a corporation is the "public property" aspect, which is a contradiction and therefore would not exist under natural law.
2
u/Agitated-Impress7805 24d ago
Public property is land or infrastructure owned by the government, not by corporations.
1
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 24d ago
Public property is any property "owned" by a collective.
2
u/betty_white_bread 24d ago
That’s a fringe definition, not a normal one.
0
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 23d ago
The "fringe" in this case is objectively correct. I have identified the differentia of the concept.
Under your definitons, you give people the false dichotomy of collectivism, or collectivism.
1
u/betty_white_bread 23d ago
The fringe, being outside the norm by definition, is not accepted as correct. You want it to be. It makes perfect sense you want it to be so you can use it to try to convince people. It’s, however, no and certainly not objectively correct in any generally accepted, a.k.a. “normal”, sense.
0
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 23d ago
I don't need the facts of reality to be accepted for them to be true.
1
u/DrawPitiful6103 23d ago
So do you also oppose partnerships, such as a law firm?
0
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 23d ago
If they are an attempt at collective ownership, yes.
1
u/DrawPitiful6103 23d ago
So the only form of enterprise you think is okay is a sole proprietorship? Have you considered that the modern economy could not function if hobbled in such a manner?
0
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 23d ago
The modern economy is plagued. I do not want it to operate.
2
u/DrawPitiful6103 24d ago
No, the corporation is just a highly effective form of business organization. The essential defining feature of the corporation is the existence of shareholders, i.e. minority owners of stock. Corporations would very much exist in the absence of the state.
1
10
u/new_publius 24d ago
Your premise is flawed. Government is not the only centralized power that can threaten liberties. Monopolies can also be oppressive. Competitive markets are what brings better and cheaper goods and services with better worker protections and pay. Regulation often makes markets less competitive. Monopolies usually exist due to government action. A free market is only free when it's competitive.