I rarely post on this forum as I am rarely interested in expressing an opinion about anything except art, but a debate with a freind of mine has led me to wonder about this. The libertarian argument is usually based on the idea of a smaller government, but I argue that this requires a very limited definition of government where corporations aren’t defined as governments. I simply don’t see what differentiates that government from the elected government except that in that case money is what votes rather than people. Therefore people with lots of money have more vote. In my opinion, libertarianism leads to a feudal system that is decidedly undemocratic.
You have some serious circular, self-referential, logic there with the free nonsensical package thrown in for free. Is a small business a government? What if that business gets a lot bigger? At what point would it become a “government”? Google was started as a project by a couple of grad students? At what point did it become a government?
I tried to imagine that I was high to make it through your OP but the libertarian and democracy angles slammed me hard back into reality and I was lost again.
Even if we suspend disbelief even further, everyone has a “vote” when it comes to corporations. Wal-Mart and Exxon cannot exist without the individual consumers that buy their products.
I know the meanings of all these words individually, but haven’t a clue what they mean when put together in this order. Can you expand your argument or premises with some helpful definitions?
It is always a government, I would never make an argument to the contrary. I’ve nothing against government. I still want the ultimate authority to be elected by people rather than money.
If you feel that being high helps you understand things maybe you need to quit smoking pot. I’ve nothing against capitalism, competition, or businesses. I just don’t consider the libertarian position to be small government.
Where do you make the distinction between a government and a corporation? Is it the one that has an army?
It isn’t an argument at all, I am curious as to how various people distinguish between a government and a corporate entity. Obviously, I am antilibertarian, but I am not here to debate that.
Maybe a good place to begin with all of this would be to explain your rationale for why someone would consider a corporation to be a government.
You have to define your terms.
What’s a “government”? You started the thread, it’s up to you to give us a little guidance.
From Mirriam Websters online dictionary:
Definition 1 is: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
Does a corporation assert authoratative direction and control? I think so.
Definition 2 is called obsolete although I would certainly agrue that businesses have been known to control moral conduct.
Definition 3: the office, authority, or function of governing
It’s a bit circular since you have to define governing.
Does a corporation exercise continuous sovereign authority? I think so
Does a corporation control and direct the making of policy? I think so
I could go on, but I am not interested in an argument. Take it for granted that I consider a corporation to be a government because they do what other governments do and that is make policy. The policies they make effect me both as an employee and as a consumer.
What is it that you think differentiates a government from a corporation?
A corporation has a fiduciary duty to make a profit for its shareholders.
A government, not so much.
Do you mean from the point of view of one of the corporation’s employees, or as to the public at large?
Governments determine what the legitimate use of force in a society is (i.e., what constitutes a jailable offense, for what actions is death an appropriate response), corporations do not. A government levies taxes, a corporation does not.
That’s a reasonable distinction. I don’t accept it personally, but that is fine by me. I think a government that makes money is better off than a government that goes into debt. I can’t imagine that an effective government can survive indefinitely on debt.
That’s true, but I don’t think that it is a requirement.
Well really the purpose of taxes is to support operations that the government is responsible for. Likewise, Super-Mart purchases product A at cost X, then charges the customer cost Y. The excess that Y is over X serves the same purpose as a tax and that is to support operations i.e. pay workers, transportation, maintain equipment, any processes used to modify product A, and report profit to the shareholders. It’s not called a tax, but it serves the same purpose.
Control over who? I can think of several governments that have authority over me (fed, state, and city, to name a few). However, I cannot think of a single corporation that claim authority or control over me.
Same question - which corporation, if any, controls my moral conduct?
Disagree and disagree. Same reasoning as above.
I make policies (albeit on a personal level) that affect people around me every day. For example, I have an ongoing policy to move right and STAY right when I am on a sidewalk and encounter people headed in the other direction (this helps avoid the “awkward sidewalk dance” with which all-too-many pedestrians are familiar). Am I affecting people around me? Absolutely. Am I a government? Hardly.
One of them can govern me, while the other one cannot. This may seem like an oversimplification, but really, it isn’t.
A corporation’s decisions are not authoritative, nor are corporations sovereign. Corporations have to follow laws, and a decision not in consonance with the laws is punishable by the laws enacted by a government, which is the very definition of authoritative. By the same measure, corporations do not exercise sovereignty because the decisions of a corporation are subject to laws established by a variety of levels of governments. In fact, corporations can only be formed as the law allows, further emphasizing that corporations are products of a government, not interchangable with them.
Moreover, corporations do not function as a controlling body over a political entity. Corporations do not make rules that people cannot opt out of.
If one goes beyond dictionary definitions, one common definition of a government is one that exercises control over a set geography and population, has a means of producing income, exercises sovereignty (including as a corollary a monopoly on the legitimate use of force), and is recognized by other governments as a government.
In other words, you are wrong, and your argument makes no sense.
What is the purpose of a government if it’s not to write and enforce the law?
The purpose is roughly the same but the mechanism is very different. Are you also unable to distinguish between VHS and DVD? Bloodletting and modern medicine?
Technically, the U.S. government is also bound by various international regulations. As with a corporation, whether or not they choose to abide by these regulations is dependable. Of course the U.S. government had considerable say in how these international regulations were made. Likewise, corporations have considerable say over how U.S. policy turns out.
As an employee they do. Unless your going to argue that anyone can get up and leave their job at any time. Technically it’s true, but practcally it is not. Especially in a job market like this, leaving is not an option for most.
Stupid is not the same as ilegal.
Well, sure - if you work for a specific corporation, then that specific corporation does have a say in how you conduct yourself, and their decisions directly affect you. So, I guess you could make the stretch and say that the corporation is a governing body for its employees. If this is where you are going, my next question would be “What does this have to do with Libertarianism?”.
Nitpick, but people in a corporation got to their position via a process of elimination that selects for ability. They’re not selected on a whim nor do they buy their way in. People in (elected) government positions achieve theirs via a process of elimination that selects for electability, which has nothing in particular to do with a depth of understanding of the issues nor the ability to make critical and impartial decisions. The only saving grace is that you’re unlikely to rise in any hierarchy if you’re not reasonably intelligent and checks and balances keep anything major from ever being implemented.
If there was a way to create a system that selected for ability in the government, we’d be way ahead versus appointment by popular vote.