Why Libertarians should oppose corporations

[IcarusAngel]

I've been saying it's illogical to "oppose" collectivism while at the same time supporting the worst forms of collectivism imaginable, corporations. Most Libertarians don't admit corporations are collectivist because they are ruled by an individual leader. However, corporations are large instiutions whose property is protected by the state, where power goes from the top to the bottom, and work as a collectivist entity. This Libertarian even admits it:


But what happens if groups of people, i.e., collectivist entities, form together for the purpose of getting the government to grant unearned special privileges to them? How will this affect the marketplace? Well, this has actually happened in America, and the result is that these collectivist entities with their government-bestowed privileges have taken over our economy, in some particular cases to the benefit of some particular individuals, but to the overall detriment to individuals in general. These collectivist entities are known as “corporations,” and it is initially puzzling as to why they are lionized by “Libertarians,” who proclaim themselves the defenders of individual rights.

By deliberately obscuring the boundaries between individuals and corporations, “Libertarians” have caused themselves to treat corporations as if they were individuals, thereby assisting in the corporate takeover of America, and the McDonaldization of practically everything and practically everyplace, all over the globe – “Globalization.”


By admitting this, the Libertarian argues against himself, because there is no way for there to be a capitalist economy without hierarchical institutions like corporations and private property (and a government to protect them).

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/whycorporations.html

[Bankotsu]

The only silver lining I can see is that perception will spread that the financial sector is an intrusive dynamic subjecting the economy to debt deflation. But at present, lawmakers are acting as if the economy is an albatross around Wall Street’s neck. (“How are we wealthy people to bear the cost of healing the sick and employing the masses?” the financial sector complains. “The cost is eating into our ability to create wealth.”)

Libertarians have warned that our economy is going down the Road to Serfdom.

What they do not realize is that by fighting against government power to check financial hubris, they are paving the road for centralized financial planning by Wall Street.

They have been tricked into leading the parade on behalf of the financial, insurance and real estate sector – down the road to debt peonage in a monopolized and polarized economy...

http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson02012010.html



Let me give you a few examples of how the lack of adequate paradigms blocks our understanding of the history of our subject.


The area of political action in our society is a circle in which at least four actors may intervene: the government, individuals, communities, and voluntary associations, especially corporations.

Yet, for the last century, discussion of political actions, and especially the controversies arising out of such actions, have been carried on in terms of only two actors, the government and the individual.

Nineteenth century books often assumed a polarization of the individual versus the state, while many twentieth century books seek to portray the state as the solution of most individuals' problems.

Conservatives, from von Hayek to Ayn Rand, now try to curtail government in the excuse that this will give more freedom to individuals, while liberals try to destroy communities with the aim of making all individuals identical, including boys and girls.

And since what we get in history is never what any one individual or group is struggling for, but is the resultant of diverse groups struggling, the area of political action will be increasingly reduced to an arena where the individual, detached from any sustaining community, is faced by gigantic and irresponsible corporations...

http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Communities-AD-976-1576.htm


To get back to sovereignty and the structure of the state, another cause of today's instability is that we now have a society in America, in Europe and in much of the world which is totally dominated by the two elements of sovereignty that are not included in the state structure: control of credit and banking and the corporation.

These are free of political controls and social responsibility, and they have largely monopolized power in Western Civilization and in American society. They are ruthlessly going forward to eliminate land, labor, entrepreneurial- managerial skills, and everything else the economists once told us were the chief elements of production.

The only element of production they are concerned with is the one they can control: capital...


To me, the most ominous flaw in our constitutional set-up is the fact that the federal government does not have control over of money and credit and does not have control of corporations.

It is therefore not really sovereign. And it is not really responsible, because it is now controlled by these two groups, corporations, and those who control the flows of money.

The new public financing of the Presidential elections is arranged so that they can spend as much as they want: voluntary contributions, not authorized by the candidate, are legal.

The administrative system and elections are dominated today by the private power of money flows and corporation activities.

I want to read you a summary from James Willard Hurst’s "The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States from 1780 to 1970". He points out that there was powerful anti-corporation feeling in the United States in the 1820's.

Therefore, it was established by the states that corporations could not exist by prescription: they had to have charters.

They had to have a limited term of life and not be immortal.

Corporations today are immortal: if they get charters, they can live forever and bury us all.

They had to have a limited purpose. Who is giving us this bread made of sawdust? ITT: International Telephone and Telegraph, the same corporation that drove Ivar Kreuger to suicide in Paris in April 1931, when it actually was an international telegraph corporation, controlled by J P. Morgan.

http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm (http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm)....


It is worth recalling that representative democracy is rule by the people.

Corporations, first chartered into existence over 200 years ago by the states, were meant to be our servants, not our masters.

Especially in the aftermath of Citizens United, it is time to right this relationship.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24644.htm



Libertarians seem to be the most naive group of people in politics.

They don't seem to have any sort of understanding of what sort of politics they are pushing for.

[RED DAVE]

Libertarians seem to be the most naive group of people in politics.

They don't seem to have any sort of understanding of what sort of politics they are pushing for.There are definitely some libertarians who are naive. However, my experience is that they are a combination of self-centeredness and cynicism. They all seem to think that they are going to rise to the top to become the capitalist leader or the self-sufficient proprietor. They often seem to be either heavy-duty narcissists or sufferers from Asberberger's Syndrome.

RED DAVE

[IcarusAngel]

Libertarians only succeed within their false paradigms, such as big government vs. small government, when Libertarians are the ones calling for the biggest government at all: government that protects the interests of the corporations without representing the interests of the public at large (which is what government was supposed to be established for). By weakening public input, they're expanding government.

Also, notice how deregulation, such as the repeal of the glass-stegall act, the privatization of energy supplies, etc., all led to failing financial institutions and failing energy companies which necessitated more government intervention.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Libertarians" don't understand the classical economics concept of rent, which is why their argument for "small government" is self-defeating.

[Bankotsu]

If the Libertarian agenda of small government succeeds, it will only lead to other forces like the financial or corporate oligarchy to wreak havoc on society and oppress the working class.

Their paradigm and logic on how society functions is completely wrong.

I think left wing forces must firmly disapprove and oppose the Libertarian agenda.




The area of political action in our society is a circle in which at least four actors may intervene: the government, individuals, communities, and voluntary associations, especially corporations.

Conservatives, from von Hayek to Ayn Rand, now try to curtail government in the excuse that this will give more freedom to individuals, while liberals try to destroy communities with the aim of making all individuals identical, including boys and girls.

And since what we get in history is never what any one individual or group is struggling for, but is the resultant of diverse groups struggling, the area of political action will be increasingly reduced to an arena where the individual, detached from any sustaining community, is faced by gigantic and irresponsible corporations...

[Agnapostate]

It's been pointed out many times that the consistent propertarian would be obligated to support massive re-distribution of wealth and resources, considering that primitive accumulation was characterized by an abundance of force and fraud, allegedly at odds with the non-aggression principle. Most have a tendency to engage in "vulgar libertarian" behavior, defending allocation skewed by authoritarian means and state intervention as though it emerged through libertarian conditions.