Why don't Libertarians oppose corporations?

[eric922]

Libertarains claim to want a laissez faire economy with no government intervention and yet I've never heard one attacking corporations. This doesn't make sense to me since coroproations are creations of the State, to grant certain rights and privileges to a company. Why don't libertarians ever attack this instance of government interference?

[Revolution starts with U]

Same reason they are disgusted more by welfare than imperialism. It all starts with a sort os social "dawinistc" view, and proceeds from there. All the allusions to liberty are just smoke and mirrors they use to foolbthemselves.

Some actually do tho, tho not enough to make a mark.

[Ostrinski]

Why don't libertarians oppose capitalism? Because they're inconsistent.

[Grenzer]

Because most of them are petty bourgeois fucks who are unable to see beyond their immediate future. Most believe their class interests are designed to that of the bourgeoisie, when this is false. Libertarianism is really a petty bourgeois ideology, no capitalist would want a minimal state.

[Ostrinski]

Because most of them are petty bourgeois fucks who are unable to see beyond their immediate future. Most believe their class interests are designed to that of the bourgeoisie, when this is false. Libertarianism is really a petty bourgeois ideology, no capitalist would want a minimal state.You're right, most libertarians are petite bourgeois students. Their ideas stand on the foundations of not only ideals, but ideals so abstract that they don't reflect any class interest at all. That's what makes them so irrelevant.

[Deicide]

I don't know whether ''libertarians'' includes ''Anarcho-Capitalists''? They seem to use them interchangeably.

But I've seen Anarcho-capitalists argue that corporations would not exist if the government didn't exist. They claim it's the governments that allows the formation of monopolies in the first place. And without it, the free market competition would never allow the formation of monopolies.

[RGacky3]

Its becuase they are ideologicall inconsistant.

[Night Ripper]

Libertarains claim to want a laissez faire economy with no government intervention and yet I've never heard one attacking corporations. This doesn't make sense to me since coroproations are creations of the State, to grant certain rights and privileges to a company. Why don't libertarians ever attack this instance of government interference?

I guess you didn't know this but libertarians see corporations as nothing but groups of individuals. A corporation has no rights. Only those individuals that comprise it have rights.

[Night Ripper]

Why don't libertarians oppose capitalism? Because they're inconsistent.

Stop trolling. A pithy one-liner without any substance adds nothing.

[Revolution starts with U]

I guess you didn't know this but libertarians see corporations as nothing but groups of individuals. A corporation has no rights. Only those individuals that comprise it have rights.
You mean like this? :lol:

Stop trolling. A pithy one-liner without any substance adds nothing.

[eric922]

I guess you didn't know this but libertarians see corporations as nothing but groups of individuals. A corporation has no rights. Only those individuals that comprise it have rights.
Fine, but the government still grants those individuals certain rights and privileges that they would not otherwise have, which is why the form a corporation in the first place. It is still goverment intervention in the market which libertarians say they oppose.

[Night Ripper]

Fine, but the government still grants those individuals certain rights and privileges that they would not otherwise have, which is why the form a corporation in the first place. It is still goverment intervention in the market which libertarians say they oppose.

You shouldn't get any extra rights just because you start a corporation and if you do then libertarians oppose it. End of story. Stop asking why we support government intervention because we don't. We don't even support intellectual property.

[Pretty Flaco]

i support satan

[Drosophila]

Because they're idiots who believe in a dream world where unregulated capitalism brings nothing but good.

[Revolution starts with U]

You shouldn't get any extra rights just because you start a corporation and if you do then libertarians oppose it. End of story. Stop asking why we support government intervention because we don't. We don't even support intellectual property.

What? Limited liability... ever hear of it?

[Night Ripper]

What? Limited liability... ever hear of it?

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I said you SHOULD NOT GET EXTRA RIGHTS. So what does pointing out that LLC's exist have to do with anything at all? We oppose LLC's.

[Revolution starts with U]

Some of you do. I noted as such in my first post. Otoh, its often the libertarian crowd, a la Koch bros, that push the hardest for corporate personhood.

[RGacky3]

Althoughsome libertarians are nominally against corporations I don't see them at the protests, I see them at tea party rallies.

Anyway, gook luck having modern capitalism without LLC.

[Night Ripper]

Some of you do.

The libertarians that support state intervention aren't following libertarian philosophy. If you advocate violating the NAP then you aren't a libertarian. States necessarily violate the NAP because they have to collect taxes. States are incompatible with libertarianism.

It would be like saying that some communists support private ownership of capital. They aren't communists then.

[Caj]

The libertarians that support state intervention aren't following libertarian philosophy. If you advocate violating the NAP then you aren't a libertarian. States necessarily violate the NAP because they have to collect taxes. States are incompatible with libertarianism.

It would be like saying that some communists support private ownership of capital. They aren't communists then.

Capitalism is incompatible with statelessness. The state is necessary to protect private property rights.

[Night Ripper]

The state is necessary to protect private property rights.

No, it's not. There could exist private justice systems. Anyways, you are veering off-topic. This thread is about opposing corporations, which libertarians do, in their current form.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, it's not. There could exist private justice systems. Anyways, you are veering off-topic. This thread is about opposing corporations, which libertarians do, in their current form.

1) Some do, a small minority

2) That's still a state

[Drosophila]

No, it's not. There could exist private justice systems. Anyways, you are veering off-topic. This thread is about opposing corporations, which libertarians do, in their current form.

Yeah, private judicial systems in a profit-dominated society....great idea...

[Revolution starts with U]

The libertarians that support state intervention aren't following libertarian philosophy. If you advocate violating the NAP then you aren't a libertarian. States necessarily violate the NAP because they have to collect taxes. States are incompatible with libertarianism.

It would be like saying that some communists support private ownership of capital. They aren't communists then.

.or the ones that support Stalin :blink:

But you know, Cato institute, heritage foundation, and Dr Paul aren't really libertarian

[Night Ripper]

.or the ones that support Stalin :blink:

But you know, Cato institute, heritage foundation, and Dr Paul aren't really libertarian

They have strong libertarian leanings but they are ultimately minarchists not libertarians.

[Revolutionair]

Why do you think the state exists, who are the ones that gain (profit) with the existence of the modern nation-state? Why did the modern state rise as the capitalist class rose?

I think that the state is a service, there is a moneyed interest in having a state. If the capitalist class did not want to fund a state, it wouldn't be here. But they do fund the state, because the benefits are bigger than the costs. As long as you have a system in which people can protect their wealth (private property = privatized means of production), you will have a state.

In my eyes, libertarians want to privatize the state to make it more efficient. Less healthcare for the poor, slightly more repression so working days can be increased as well as the reimplementation of child labor. Libertarians are against the liberty of the working class, they only care for the capitalist class. Which is also why they would rather cut on welfarism instead of imperialism.

[Revolutionair]

They have strong libertarian leanings but they are ultimately minarchists not libertarians.

So it is possible to have strong libertarian leanings when you get funded by anti-worker scum? I've heard enough.

[Revolution starts with U]

They have strong libertarian leanings but they are ultimately minarchists not libertarians.

Not all libertarians are anarchists, silly. :thumbup1:

[Partizanac]

I guess you didn't know this but libertarians see corporations as nothing but groups of individuals. A corporation has no rights. Only those individuals that comprise it have rights.


This is wrong. A corporation is not a business owned by a group of people. A corporation is by definition a person. It should stand for all that you hate since it delegates all responsibility of individuals to a collective unitary form.

[Night Ripper]

Not all libertarians are anarchists, silly. :thumbup1:

They are if they are logically consistent.


A corporation is by definition a person.

Under a libertarian system, that would not be the case. I don't support crony capitalism.

[robbo203]

No, it's not. There could exist private justice systems. .

How do you figure that out? The logic of legitimising private property rights almost certainly points to the need for one over-riding authority in the form of a state to arbitrate between competing claims. If X resorts to her private justice system that rules in her favour and Y resorts to his private justice that rules in his favour than you have an impasse as far as the rival claims of X and Y are concerned.


Ive come cross this batty libertarian argument before and it has never made sense to me at all

[Revolutionair]

How do you figure that out? The logic of legitimising private property rights almost certainly points to the need for one over-riding authority in the form of a state to arbitrate between competing claims. If X resorts to her private justice system that rules in her favour and Y resorts to his private justice that rules in his favour than you have an impasse as far as the rival claims of X and Y are concerned.


If I come cross this batty libertarian argument before and it has never made sense to me at all

Well look at it this way.

Every service costs money. Rich people have money. Rich people have things worth stealing. Poor people don't have money. Poor people don't have anything worth stealing. So a private defense agency would make sense since it's just regular warlordism with an extra pinch of child labor and slavery.

[Night Ripper]

If X resorts to her private justice system that rules in her favour and Y resorts to his private justice that rules in his favour than you have an impasse as far as the rival claims of X and Y are concerned.

If X goes to court A and Y goes to court B and the two courts A and B don't agree with each other then there are two possibilities, either court A and B have another court C that they both agree to settle their disputes with or they simply go to war with each other. Because war is costly, those kinds of courts won't be able to compete as well as the other courts that have dispute resolution agreements in place. It's kind of how international courts work, USA and China may have different laws and therefore disagree on judgement but they both go to the ICJ instead of going to war.

[robbo203]

If X goes to court A and Y goes to court B and the two courts A and B don't agree with each other then there are two possibilities, either court A and B have another court C that they both agree to settle their disputes with or they simply go to war with each other. Because war is costly, those kinds of courts won't be able to compete as well as the other courts that have dispute resolution agreements in place. It's kind of how international courts work, USA and China may have different laws and therefore disagree on judgement but they both go to the ICJ instead of going to war.


That is exactly my point and why the notion of a free market system of justice propounded by some anarchocapitalist libertarians is an absurdity. There has to be some kind of final arbiter that is vested with legitimacy to settle such disputes

[Partizanac]

Then it is not a corporation.

[Night Ripper]

There has to be some kind of final arbiter that is vested with legitimacy to settle such disputes

Only if you ignore reality as I just pointed out how our current international justice system works exactly that way. Nobody has forced the US and China to join the ICJ. They voluntarily did so and can back out at anytime. Also, any case in the US can be appealed all the way up to the SCOTUS and then if that doesn't get you what you want, you can lobby to get the law changed. Nothing is ever final in a dispute between two parties until one of them dies or gives up.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

If X goes to court A and Y goes to court B and the two courts A and B don't agree with each other then there are two possibilities, either court A and B have another court C that they both agree to settle their disputes with or they simply go to war with each other. Because war is costly, those kinds of courts won't be able to compete as well as the other courts that have dispute resolution agreements in place. It's kind of how international courts work, USA and China may have different laws and therefore disagree on judgement but they both go to the ICJ instead of going to war.

Hold on a minute, are you advocating civil war as a means of settling judicial disputes?

[bugsbunny]

Libertarains claim to want a laissez faire economy with no government intervention and yet I've never heard one attacking corporations. This doesn't make sense to me since coroproations are creations of the State, to grant certain rights and privileges to a company. Why don't libertarians ever attack this instance of government interference?

I am a libertarian who does not like big business because they interfere with the free markets.

But what do you mean by corporations? According to the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation), a corporation is :



noun
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/independent) of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

2. ( initial capital letter ) the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.

3. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.

4. Informal . a paunch; potbelly.


I think for our purposes, you are referring to defination 1 or 3.

Firstly, corporations are not created by the State. They may be protected by law but they are not created by the state. They are created by individuals for a specific function - usually to make a profit.

The corporation is regarded as a seperate entity from the individuals the individual owners of the corporation. If the corporation goes bust, the individuals do not go bust. The corporations is regarded as an entity by itself. It can enter into contracts, sue others and be sued by others just as if it were a human being.

Examples of corporations are Exxon, Microsoft, Google etc. These are very big corporations. A corporation can be big or small. You can start a corporation with a capital of $2. Some corporations start small and end up very big. Exxon was started by Getty. Microsoft was started by Bill Gates.

My beef with large corporations is that the free market gets stifled if there is not enough competition. If there are say 4 large corporations dominating the market, they can secretly collude and fix prices. They also become "too big to fail" and governments think they have to bail them out. To me, nobody is too big to fail. Whether you are big or small, you should treated the same and nobody is to bailed out.

[RGacky3]

I am a libertarian who does not like big business because they interfere with the free markets.


But thats rediculous since free markets LEAD to big buisiness.


Firstly, corporations are not created by the State. They may be protected by law but they are not created by the state. They are created by individuals for a specific function - usually to make a profit.

The corporation is regarded as a seperate entity from the individuals the individual owners of the corporation. If the corporation goes bust, the individuals do not go bust. The corporations is regarded as an entity by itself. It can enter into contracts, sue others and be sued by others just as if it were a human being.

Examples of corporations are Exxon, Microsoft, Google etc. These are very big corporations. A corporation can be big or small. You can start a corporation with a capital of $2. Some corporations start small and end up very big. Exxon was started by Getty. Microsoft was started by Bill Gates.

My beef with large corporations is that the free market gets stifled if there is not enough competition. If there are say 4 large corporations dominating the market, they can secretly collude and fix prices. They also become "too big to fail" and governments think they have to bail them out. To me, nobody is too big to fail. Whether you are big or small, you should treated the same and nobody is to bailed out.


I'm talking about corporations in the sense that every corporation in the entire world is.

Too big to fail just means the externalities are so huge they'll have systemic consequences.

In the 1980s, Mexico had a financial crisis, Mexico followed YOUR advice, and guess what, it did'nt work.

"to big to fail" is inevitable in capitalism, companies will maximise their externalities, and as they grow their externalities grow even more.

[bugsbunny]

But thats rediculous since free markets LEAD to big buisiness..

Not necessarily. It depends on the industry. Some industries that require a lot of capital tend to have companies to grow very big. Others do not. I gave you an example before - babysitting.

Is there a large company providing baby sitting services?





I'm talking about corporations in the sense that every corporation in the entire world is.

Too big to fail just means the externalities are so huge they'll have systemic consequences.

In the 1980s, Mexico had a financial crisis, Mexico followed YOUR advice, and guess what, it did'nt work.

"to big to fail" is inevitable in capitalism, companies will maximise their externalities, and as they grow their externalities grow even more


Iceland allowed its banks to go bust. Now the country is recovering.

[RGacky3]

Not necessarily. It depends on the industry. Some industries that require a lot of capital tend to have companies to grow very big. Others do not. I gave you an example before - babysitting.


babysitting is a rediculous examples because its a tiny tiny tiny part of the GDP, give me a major industry.


Is there a large company providing baby sitting services?


No because its a tiny tiny part of the GDP, hell most baby sitting services are not in the market economy.


Iceland allowed its banks to go bust. Now the country is recovering.

No it did'nt, it allowed the British banks to go bust, then it nationalized the Icelandic banks.

[bugsbunny]

babysitting is a rediculous examples because its a tiny tiny tiny part of the GDP, give me a major industry.



No because its a tiny tiny part of the GDP, hell most baby sitting services are not in the market economy.




Baby sitting service is part of the market economy.

Another example? How about the porn industry? Are there any porn making companies that are as big as Exxon or Microsoft? No. There are many many porn companies out there. So not all industries have concentrations into a few very large companies.

How about the hair stylist business?

Car repair shops?

[RGacky3]

Another example? How about the porn industry? Are there any porn making companies that are as big as Exxon or Microsoft? No. There are many many porn companies out there. So not all industries have concentrations into a few very large companies.


Sure, some babysitting is part of hte market economy, but most of it is'nt.

Porn is pretty concentrated, but the world wide web changed that a lot, to the point where porn is actually dying as a for profit industry, it survives basically through advertising, so it no longer is a productive industry.

Again, Hair stylists, Car repair and all those things are NOT MAJOR INDUSTRIES, they hold a tiny tiny part of the world economy.

Again, your just picking other industries that make up a tiny tiny part of the economy.

[Revolution starts with U]

I thought I had to go to the state for a corporate charter when I incorporated my business... guess I wasweong.

[Night Ripper]

I thought I had to go to the state for a corporate charter when I incorporated my business... guess I wasweong.

What exactly is your point?

[eric922]

What exactly is your point?
That corporations are creations of the State and wouldn't exist without the State interfering the economy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Its possible they could exist without a formal state, not likely. But all existing corporations are statist enterprises.

[Night Ripper]

Its possible they could exist without a formal state, not likely. But all existing corporations are statist enterprises.

That's like saying that all marriages are statist enterprises or that all births are statist enterprises just because you currently have to get a marriage license or birth certificate from the state.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, I am saying that. Welcome to capitalism.

[Night Ripper]

Ya, I am saying that. Welcome to capitalism.

Marriage licenses and birth certificates have fuckall to do with capitalism. That's statism.

[Revolution starts with U]

Those terms are not mutually exclusive

[Night Ripper]

Those terms are not mutually exclusive

And? Join the discussion and make a point instead of just sniping from the sidelines.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ive made several points.

That, tho some oppose, most don't because they love power and the powerful, and hate the poor!

That corporations are statist and capitalist enterprises.

That capitalism has always entailed strong statism, historically.

Need I go on?

[Night Ripper]

That, tho some oppose, most don't because they love power and the powerful, and hate the poor!

Oppose what? Who are you talking about?


That corporations are statist and capitalist enterprises.

No they aren't, not any more than marriage and birth are statist enterprises.


That capitalism has always entailed strong statism, historically.

Even if that were true (it isn't), just because societies have operated a certain way doesn't mean they have to or will continue to operate that way.

[Revolution starts with U]

Oppose corporations dummy. Aren't you paying attention? :lol:

Marriages and births in modern capitalism are statist enterprises.

Yes, they have. Unless you're talking about the few short years of the AoC in the US, the rest of capitalism has entailed strong statism. Even under AoC there was strong statism at the state level, if not federal.

[Night Ripper]

Marriages and births in modern capitalism are statist enterprises.

There can and have existed both marriage and birth outside the state.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, there have. But the state requires me, now, to certify my birth and marriage with them. If that doesn't make both those actions statistic, do what does.

[Night Ripper]

Ya, there have. But the state requires me, now, to certify my birth and marriage with them. If that doesn't make both those actions statistic, do what does.

How does that prove something can't exist without the state?

[Revolution starts with U]

I never said it did. Use the quote function to avoid making strawman arguments.;)

[Night Ripper]

I never said it did.

So then this detour was a huge waste of time. Corporations don't require the state.

[Revolution starts with U]

Corporations in modern capitalism do.

But youre right: any discussions with you are a waste of time.:lol:

[Night Ripper]

Corporations in modern capitalism do.

But youre right: any discussions with you are a waste of time.:lol:

Keep trolling and you will be ignored. You have a lot of low quality posts so I won't miss you.

[Revolution starts with U]

Soon enough you will have the whole site on ignore, coward.

If you cant take it when someone points out you're wrong (that all existing corps require the state) that's your problem.

So why don't I make it easier for you: ur stupeed :D