How does the state prop up corporations?

[gorillafuck]

I've heard this claim made by some of the libertarians on this site, how exactly does that happen according to you folks?

Edit: I meant this more in the sense of asking how if libertarian arguments were put into place, how would corporations NOT become excessively powerful? I'm aware of things like corporate welfare, etc. But corporations came around before corporate welfare and laws favoring them, right?

[mikelepore]

My favorite:
If a business steals from an individual, it's a "civil" matter.
If an individual steals from a business, it's a "criminal" matter.

If a business steals from an individual, and they get caught, worst case, they have to give it back, undo the theft.

If an individual steals from a business, the individual goes to jail.

Insurance company refuse to pay you a premium that you're entitled to? Manufacturer refuse to honor a warranty? Utility shut off service without justification? Car repair shop refuse to give your car back unless you pay a fee that you're legally not required to pay? Collection agency harass you for to pay a debt that you never even incurred? (All of the above have happened to me.) The penalty for them, worst case, is that a government agency tells them to make a reversal and begin obeying the law.

Wouldn't it be something if the laws that applied to businesses also applied to us? Imagine that - you steal from a bank or a jewelry store, and, if you get caught, worst case, your merely get told that you have to give them back their property. That sure would be something. There wouldn't be much of a deterrent factor there. Likewise, there is no deterrent factor to induce businesses to obey the law.

[Yazman]

Were you asleep during the bailouts? It should be blindingly obvious to everybody by now.

[Comrade Anarchist]

You have to see that the government is a corporation sort of, a giant bureaucratic and corrupt corporation. It owns the land and gives it out to the corporations for money and favors. When a company is going under if it has enough pull within the government then it will be saved through bailouts and such(goldman sachs) and if not then it be allowed to fail(lehman brothers). The governments courts are automatically biased to corporations against individuals and it legislatures makes laws that benefit their looting pockets, while the executive allows corporations to run and pay for their campaign. They get into power with corporations so they pay them back by backing them up.

[IcarusAngel]

The bailouts were due to deregulation of the financial industry. Reagan's deregulations led to two recessions, and an increasing gap between rich and poor. There are many social effects of this, one of which is economic royalism that makes people more dependent on their jobs, or wage slavery. The Great Depression was also due to deregulation.

Libertarians who advocate deregulation ultimiately support more govt. because the government has to step in and fix all the problems of markets so that it doesn't collapse, and pick up the lax research of the private corporations. This can take either two forms: either the more progressive style of reform under progressives and democrats (such as FDR) which benefit the working class, or regressive reforms such as Obama is taking. That is why communists who also advocate deregulation as means to "speed up the path" to stalinism or whatever are equally as misguided (and raises questions about why they are coming to a leftist forum).

[Incendiarism]

I've heard this claim made by some of the libertarians on this site, how exactly does that happen according to you folks?

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

[Havet]

Were you asleep during the bailouts? It should be blindingly obvious to everybody by now.

Exactly.

Moreover, the State is usually lobbied by the corporations in order to grant them certain privileges which will give them artificial advantage over the marketplace and more power than they could ever naturally dream to achieve.

Examples:

Corporate Personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)

Limited Liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability)

State subsidies to some corporations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%E2%80%93private_partnership) (mainly agricultural or energetic ones)

Intellectual Property laws (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/7/0/6/0/p70603_index.html)

Government-granted monopolies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly#Examples)

Naomi Klein explores this pretty decently. Check my thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/naomi-klein-shock-t117114/index.html?t=117114) regarding this subject.

Complementary interview (youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr15RCcrW0Q&feature=player_embedded#at=35)

[Skooma Addict]

In addition to the general laws which favor large corporations, the State also grants special privileges to individual corporations.

[gorillafuck]

I meant this more in the sense of asking how if libertarian arguments were put into place, how would corporations NOT become excessively powerful? I'm aware of things like corporate welfare, etc. But corporations came around before corporate welfare and laws favoring them, right?

[Kayser_Soso]

I meant this more in the sense of asking how if libertarian arguments were put into place, how would corporations NOT become excessively powerful? I'm aware of things like corporate welfare, etc. But corporations came around before corporate welfare and laws favoring them, right?

Corporate power exists because this is natural under capitalism. Small businessmen, one way or another will become big businessmen some day. Some libertarians will claim that they don't support bailouts or corporate welfare- but this is beside the point. The ruling class could care less about libertarian "principles". If your vast resources allow you to control the media and influence elections, why the hell should you not use that influence via the government?

Capitalism cannot exist without the state; corporate welfare is just a glaring example of how the state props up the ruling class. There are far more important roles played by the state- for example, how can contracts be enforced? What ensures that workers don't just manufacture enough products to sell and earn their living wage, reasoning that they did the labor? You need a state to enforce the property relations which make capitalism possible. Without the state, the infrastructure would be totally privately owned, which means that trade and commerce would require expensive payments to middle-men who own the highways and port facilities, to name a few. By having a state own these facilities, they can be maintained via taxes, which means part of the burden falls on the massive working/middle class as well.

Maintaining a workforce in a modern country also requires a number of institutions and facilities which capitalists prefer not to pay for by themselves- hence taxes.

[IcarusAngel]

That's a good point. Small businesses are in business to make a buck just like everybody else. There really isn't much difference between small business and big business as far as the poor worker is concerned; small businesses have often been just as brutal, if not more so, than big businesses when it comes to exploitation of the workers' wages.

[Kayser_Soso]

That's a good point. Small businesses are in business to make a buck just like everybody else. There really isn't much difference between small business and big business as far as the poor worker is concerned; small businesses have often been just as brutal, if not more so, than big businesses when it comes to exploitation of the workers' wages.

I am sure you are right but I am not so much as commenting on the level of exploitation as I am simply pointing out that many of the modern corporations which are reviled today began from humble small businesses over 100 years ago. There is far too much fascination with "the corporation" today- and it seems as though many leftists are all too happy to accept all this open hostility toward corporations or "corporate capitalism" as radical, when in fact it just distracts from the problems.

Not to mention that excessive middle-class worship can often run dangerously close to fascism.