Question for Libertarians from Nader supporter

I'm at work, so I can't watch the video, but I know why corporations were formed and got big: they evolved to compete with big government.

This was a purely self-defensive development. In the past, with small government, any time a business got too big or had too much power, competitors that were smaller, quicker and more innovative would pull the rug out from under them.

Automobiles and trucks would have reined in the railroads on their own, but Congress had to go and practically kill them off altogether, for example.

As politicians began to look for revenue sources that couldn't object (i.e., vote against them), they went after business. Businesses had to band together or get big in order to fight government regulation and taxation.

This is one of the reasons why I, as a Libertarian, don't reflexively blame corporations for everything - such attacks only cause them to get bigger weapons (lobbyists, legal departments, etc.) or to move to other countries.

The real enemy is probably our fellow voters and their elected representatives, and government employees just doing their jobs.

If we can shrink government and stop using it to attack them, and instead defend rights of all size business owners, the market will once again reward the nimble, quick and innovative smaller businesses, and the big ones will evolve smaller or become extinct.

IMissLiberty

More evidence of corporate power and influence over our lives.

Zeitgeist: Addendum

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

The industry co-regulation.
Co-regulation is always championed as a means of restraining the corporate powers, however the regulatory boards become a means for dominance.
Only the largest corporations can afford the time and expense of a team of lawyers and lobbyists who sole responsibility is to regulate their employers.
Of course someone who job it is to regulate those who sign their paychecks, usually comes up with soft rules.
One of the worst side effects of this corporatist (fascist) behavior is that the smaller players in the same markets usually get regulated against because they didn't have enough money to pay people to jump into the government trough. This eliminates competition and consolidated power to the few.

We abhor the power that big corporations hold, but only to the extent that they are able to buy and sell our elected representatves and the advantage that gives them over the small guys.

One should never dislike large corporations (in my opinion) because they got large for a reason. They filled a space in the market, and became successful because they pleased their customers.

It's maddening the amount of hate dropped on people or corporations simply for being tremendously successful. You have to remember that very successful people are the ones who drive our economy and make our way of life possible.

For example, Bill Gates and Microsoft are often the targets of hate, because they are tremendously good at what they do. They compete hard and have won many times over. Think of what kind of world we would be living in if Bill had become a ditch digger. Certainly, we would not have taken the huge technological leap in this generation, perhaps we wouldn't even be discussing this topic because there might not be an internet.

Much of this country is driven by the sweat of the many, but it truly is only the genius and dedication of the very few people who make it possible.

If we continue to kick those rare few, perhaps someday they won't use their brains, and that would represent a tremendous waste.

I understand your frustration at the notion that big business controls our government...but don't fault the corporations for buying what is clearly for sale....fault the representative that sells his influence to the highest bidder. The blame for the abuses of corporate America lies in the Capitol, in the White House, and on K Street...not on Wall Street.

Welcome to the freedom movement. Please come back often as we value your input into our revolution.

should be anti-corporate dominance, more precisely the dominance of a few monopolies, but not anti-corporation as such. Also, how do you want to deal with the monopolies...using government power and outlaw them or split them up? That would be no prudent solution.
What you need is a leveling of the playing field, more SME companies and enabling small companies to become media sized companies - for those that want - and then there are more players and competition for the monopolies, which is a free market approach to end the dominance of the big corporations, although they still may have influence.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48360#comment-460793

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/54835#comment-551193

I believe Ron Paul supporters have no problem with corporations, the problem arises when the government partners up with corporations resulting in fascism type governing.
Example:
Hemp, which contains little THC, is illegal to grow and sell. It is amazing for paper, fabric, rope, feed, oil etc. Who is the biggest lobby against hemp??
Dupont, the makers of nylon (Google Dupont and Hemp), also Georgia Pacific, and others. These greedy corporations pay off politicians, and in return, they get their competition made illegal.
Standard Oil was responsible for prohibition!! Most cars could run on Alcohol, prohibition came about, everything converted to gasoline.
These types of situations take place constantly. Its going on now, with Freddie Mac and Fannie May, I wouldnt be surprised if there are members of the Federal Reserve directly linked to the Board members of these companies.
When you look back in history, you will see coruption throughout the world. Capitalism isnt to blame for this corruption. The crooked politicians should be held accountable for the illegal actions they make, and failing to obey their oath to the constitution.

Your princes and kings are partners with thieves.

Sadly, the left, the Noam Chomskys and Amy Goodmans, like other missguided Marxists that, like extreme-right conservatives, yearn for justice and goodness, can only make the problem worse by attacking a symptom, in taking power out of the hands of corrupt corporate businessmen and putting power into the hands of corrupt politicians.

The problem (in the human condition) is the propensity of humans to use each other as means to their own ends rather than ends in themselves.

Once the implications of the limitation of human morality is grasped, we can begin to address how to create social, legal, and executive structures to mitigate the ability of people to abuse each other.

One such mode is the evasion of personal responsibility in corporate structures, as others have noted here. Moving the locus of irresponsibility and abuse from private corporate to public-corporate entities as the Nader-socialists advocate is no solution.

Worse, the left inevitably resorts to force to enforce its envidious concept of "justice", where the man with a dollar more than than you thieved it from you, and the man with a dollar less than you makes you their thief.

The libertarian method of attacking the focus and concentration of power, by decentralization and distributism, is the cure.

G.K. Chesterton writing near a century ago identified two kinds of government bureaucrats - Hudge and Gudge, that, like Democrats and Republicans, either wanted men enslaved and dependent on government like socialists or wage-enslaved and dependent on corporations ilke Republicans. Chesterton rather advocated independence.

Likewise Ayn Rand later described Democrats and Republicans, and advocated individualist independence, not altruistic enslavement to any, neither public nor private, collective.

Libertarians want everyone to be independent and free to live for themselves. Socialism is about the moral obligation to live for everyone except yourself. Fascism is about the obligation to live for and serve the richest and strongest.

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - Ayn Rand

Let Ralph Nader advocate individualism, independence and freedom, and he may get votes from intelligent, not merely missguided Libertarians!

************************************************************************************
POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Bierce
************************************************************************************

Sadly, the left, the Noam Chomskys and Amy Goodmans, like other missguided Marxists that, like extreme-right conservatives, yearn for justice and goodness, can only make the problem worse by attacking a symptom, in taking power out of the hands of corrupt corporate businessmen and putting power into the hands of corrupt politicians.

The problem (in the human condition) is the propensity of humans to use each other as means to their own ends rather than ends in themselves.

Once the implications of the limitation of human morality is grasped, we can begin to address how to create social, legal, and executive structures to mitigate the ability of people to abuse each other.

One such mode is the evasion of personal responsibility in corporate structures, as others have noted here. Moving the locus of irresponsibility and abuse from private corporate to public-corporate entities as the Nader-socialists advocate is no solution.

Worse, the left inevitably resorts to force to enforce its envidious concept of "justice", where the man with a dollar more than than you thieved it from you, and the man with a dollar less than you makes you their thief.

The libertarian method of attacking the focus and concentration of power, by decentralization and distributism, is the cure.

G.K. Chesterton writing near a century ago identified two kinds of government bureaucrats - Hudge and Gudge, that, like Democrats and Republicans, either wanted men enslaved and dependent on government like socialists or wage-enslaved and dependent on corporations ilke Republicans. Chesterton rather advocated independence.

Likewise Ayn Rand later described Democrats and Republicans, and advocated individualist independence, not altruistic enslavement to any, neither public nor private, collective.

Libertarians want everyone to be independent and free to live for themselves. Socialism is about the moral obligation to live for everyone except yourself. Fascism is about the obligation to live for and serve the richest and strongest.

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - Ayn Rand

Let Ralph Nader advocate individualism, independence and freedom, and he may get votes from intelligent, not merely missguided Libertarians!

************************************************************************************
POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Bierce
************************************************************************************

the whole focus throughout the video is on the corporation which is entirely a creation of the State. Who is the enabler and main customer of the military/industrial complex? Without a giant government there would be no incentive nor subsidies to coax industry to create mass weapons and poisons since those are always bought for government programs. And since they are government funded and implemented around the globe, the producers are shielded from prosecution for the personal and environmental harm they do.
The makers of the video give big government a total pass and imagine that the nice big government of their dreams would only use tax money in benevolent ways. This ignores all of recorded history. Government is all about power and favortism. It uses populist rhetoric to get power from people who want some agency to take care of everything without having to take any personal responsibility or making any effort themselves.

I say I agree: corporations are a huge problem. Many people don't understand when I say that, I don't mean business in general, only incorporated entities in particular. Municipal corporations are some of the worst in this regard. (that is the proper term for a "city" for those of you unaware)

As a big L Libertarian, I would support the abolition of all corporate charters and thus leave business and government having to operate with full liability. There is no valid justification for limited liability for anyone. We should level the playing field. By creating limited liability, we encourage malinvestment and unscrupulous practices.

And no, despite the cries of some, the legal system will not eat everyone alive in such a free market. Tort reform will happen naturally once all limited liability operations are ended. The sharks will though go heavy after those 'former' corporations no longer enjoy personal legal protection. The slugs at the top of the largest boards and governments will finally be held to account for their crimes.

At the very least, corporations are not Human, and thus have no inalienable rights. This includes the right to own property or freedom of speech. This needs to be fixed, but it likely won't and so abolition would be the only likely solution.

I am a "big-L" Libertarian.

Corporations got big in self-defense. Voters wanted stuff. Politicians promised stuff. Somebody had to pay for it, and, at first, it was easier to force businesses to provide the stuff. After all, they have money and they can't vote.

But they couldn't afford it, and it wasn't fair. So small business either went out of business, or it joined trade associations, or got bigger or were absorbed by a bigger corporation. Then, the bigger chain-stores, multi-nationals, etc., started lobbying Congress.

At first in self-defense, but if they could, they'd try to get the advantage.

Attacking "business" or "corporations" is part of the problem. You can bet they will drop their government affairs department in a heartbeat if we were to give them their freedom and stop using regulation, taxation and threats against them.

Further, if they could drop their tax departments and legal departments, they would. Plus, smaller, nimbler companies could compete, and the big "dinosaurs" would naturally break up and go extinct or evolve into smaller entities.

They only got big because government got big, and it was all the fault of voters whe voted to get "stuff" from politicians.

IMissLiberty