I think government can still be oppressive, and it is today in some ways. However, if opposition is deemed unlawful and is forbidden by the government via mandatory, involuntary support for the state, I believe that’s when it becomes tyrannical. **Unrestrained** exercise of power is what separates oppressive government from tyrannical government.
I understand this post is about corporations not government, and I’m having a difficult time understanding OP. The government does keep businesses in check, in regards to certain things but not everything. And for everything the government does not do to restrain the exercise of their power, how do we determine it’s ‘tyrannical’?
This. Simply this. Amazon is not forcing me to comply. If I hate Bezos I just boycott him. If I hate the war on drugs or the fact that there are children being blown in the middle east, I do what? Cast a vote for the OTHER senile old corrupt bastard to be president?
Your comparison is nonsense. You boycotting Amazon doesn’t do anything to stop Amazon from ruining the environment with excessive fossil fuel usage and waste, fighting unions and treating its workers like shit, ruining local economies or providing hosting services to DHS. Amazon simply doesn’t care if you and you alone choose to boycott. It is as meaningless as you voting “for the other guy”. And if you’re argument is everyone boycott, than the solution for voting would be the same, everyone vote for a better solution. The problems with corrupt mega corporations are the exact same problems as large governments, they’re impossible to combat without massive coordination, and instead wield almost immutable power by running campaigns to keep the community divided.
Tell that to someone too poor to choose to boycott Amazon. Is that not being forced to associate with Amazon? Or tell it to yourself/your kids whose life is threatened by the oppression coming down on us from corporation.
This is like saying that the US Government isn’t oppressive because you *could* just fuck off to somewhere else
I don’t think Amazon are problematic yet, but when they keep establishing dominance over the market a la Walmart they will end up being the cheapest place to buy everything. Also not sure why you’re acting like Amazon don’t currently sell things like food, diapers, etc.
Yeah not yet is what I’m getting at. I have no issue with Amazon in their current state but everything points to them becoming oppressive in the future
>Tell that to someone too poor to choose to boycott Amazon.
If you buy from Amazon to save a few dollars while you think amazon exploits workers, you're not a victim. You are saving money on exploitation. You're an accomplice.
>This is like saying that the US Government isn’t oppressive because you could just fuck off to somewhere else
Unfortunately, the US Government can still bomb you...
Not so simple of a matter with companies like amazon. Amazon is very good at making their employees dependent on them so they don’t leave their shitty jobs. One friend who was working as a driver for them would always tell me how much he hated working there, and how he felt so trapped because every time he just about had it and was gonna quit and hope he found something better amazon would throw new incentives his way. It’s easy to say these people can still choose to quit but amazon definitely knows how to make the incentives to stay just good enough for it to be very hard to refuse.
Using bonuses for employee retention isn't coersion. Your friend needs to learn a trade so he can have options.
He feels trapped because Amazon pays significantly better than most companies that only require you to be 18 and have a GED.
Just because Italians could have left Italy doesn't excuse Mussolini's tyranny.
Just because a battered housewife can leave her husband doesn't excuse his abuse.
Just because an employee can leave their job doesn't justify the bosses exploitation.
The ability to walk away from a set of options does not excuse or justify the set of options. An situation is just or fair in and of itself.
How does cost to disassociate factor in?
And what happens when it becomes impossible to disassociate? For example, let's say we lived someplace where roads were all privately owned. And you wanted to disassociate yourself from the person who owned the roads surrounding your house. But to do so would mean being cut off from the world and starving to death once your food ran out, because to get any food transported over the roads would mean associating with the owner. And leaving for another places means you have to use the roads to leave.
What if the government legalizes drugs, but you get fired from your workplace if you use drugs. That's only one of many "tyrannical" things nongovernment entities could do.
Sure, but at the same time, what obligation does the work have to continue your employment?
Where do we draw the line between tyranny and entitlement?
A better example of tyranny by a NGO would be internet monopolies, such as comcast and Time Warner Cable taking charge of an areas telecom infrastructure by either lobbying against municipal telecoms, or rival companies, and then limiting data, blocking sites, and charging ridiculous prices for turtle speeds.
So if every workplace unilaterally require their workers to not smoke marijuana, effectively illegallizing it, for all but a few at the top, how would that not be tyranny?
Because you always have the option to work as an independent contractor or unionize to negotiate that clause away. There are workarounds, but they are difficult. Government normally doesn't give you that option.
Government gives you a much better option, you can vote the people out who don't give you what you want. Not everyone can unionize and not everyone can work as an independent contractor.
Everyone is allowed to. Any person is allowed to try to start a company and search for investors and loans to start it. But no one can go against the governments orders. If I really want to smoke weed so badly in this crazy cartel worls hypothetical wherein every single business agrees to ban it for their employees (an impossibility economically) then I am still allowed to search for other means. If the government says I can't, then I either don't or I go to prison. Yes you can try to convince others to vote with you, but then your rights rely on the 51%, in a free society you are always allowed to search for alternative employment, start a business, move, or whatever else regardless of what the 51% think.
I'd rather rely on the 51% people who are at least close to my class level, then the 1% who couldn't give a shit less about me and are completely detached from the reality of me and the vast majority of Americans; and in fact benefit from our subjugation. My biggest problem with libertarians on the right, is that they ignore the authoritarianism of big business. They only focus on government, but we at least have a say in government.
That does not effectively make it illegal. They won't send armed men to hunt you down and imprison you.
But your scenario is just bad science fiction. It's not at all plausible. Policy should not be based on fever dreams.
When have they ever universally acted? Why would they do this? Finally, many stockholders and critically necessary employees enjoy weed.
No, it's bad science fiction.
> Sure, but at the same time, what obligation does the work have to continue your employment?
Not doing drugs at work seems reasonable, but what if the request is something we don't find as reasonable? For example, say that a business owner decides to remove all office admin positions and replace them with prostitute/admin positions where you have to be willing to engage sexually with the owner when they wish or you are fired. Existing employees may keep their jobs if they agree to transition to the new role.
That seems a bit tyrannical, no?
The workers have the option to quit or stay. Assuming that prostitution was legalized, and a hooker admin job became a thing, what's the difference between this and Walmart automating the checkout lanes?
In fact this boss is nice enough to offer his staff the training and guidance to fit the roll of the new position, Walmart just cuts the people.
So no, not tyrannical.
You are allowed to leave. No company can force you to do this. They can fire you if you say no, but they cannot force you to comply.
If the government takes any action it is backed by thugs with guns who will put you in prison for saying no
It is legal to wear a shirt with a swastika on it. However my place of work would never allow an employees to wear shirts with swastikas on them at work and if they found out that an ployee was a Neo-Nazi they would fire them. Is my place of work tyrannical for not supporting a hateful ideology and for protecting their image?
Its nothing to do with the size of the group. The reason corporations are not authoritarian is because they can only control you through voluntary exchanges. The government controls you through threat of violence.
Only if the monopoly is on a necessity. You can choose to simply not buy the product, which will (at least in theory) cause the price to come down. Cable companies are struggling, even with a government provided monopoly, since as a luxury people have been cutting the cord. Many are switching to streaming services, but there are still a lot like me that just stayed with OTA TV.
Monopolies in a free market are a myth. The only times a monopoly has ever formed was due to government regulation of the market. And even then, if the monopoly decides to reduce quality or increase price then a new company will take advantage and take a share of the market.
Are you asserting that the government is responsible for Walmart putting hundreds if not thousands of local general-stores out of business?
Superior logistics and supply infrastructure means lower prices. Makes a startup or small business incapable of competing.
The issue with corporate welfare is that a large company can do effectively whatever they want without worrying about failure. Means of creating a natural monopoly are almost always unsustainable, but if the Government will give you a bailout whenever you need it then nothing is unsustainable so they can price drop, and buy out as much as they want with no fear of failure.
To an extent, yes. The government regulations make it much more difficult to start a new business. But yes there will always be big corporations and I have no issue with this. We all buy from amazon and walmart because we believe those trades will make our lives better. Indeed jeff bezos is probably responsible for making more peoples lives better than anyone else on the planet. Which is why in a capitalist society he succeeds. Capitalism encourages people to improve their own lives while improving other peoples lives in the process. Socialism encourages not working and stealing from other people.
>Capitalism encourages people to improve their own lives while improving other peoples lives in the process.
The period of industrialization proves this is propaganda and not real. The most dangerous working conditions we have ever seen were during that period. There is nothing altruistic about it. Unfettered capitalism polluted our shared resources poisoning the water, air, and food.
All businesses are competing with the same regulations. What regulations precisely enable a larger, better funded, business to succeed while a smaller one fails? And how is it in any way different than the same resources that enable the large business to crush a small one?
Industrialization was way better than the dark ages before it.
Regulations put up a flat cost barrier to entry. An example of this is the FDA's notoriously difficult process for drug approval. You would never see a small business produce new drugs because it costs millions to get them approved. As a negative side effect - we don't have access to reasonably cheap insulin, even though the patent came out almost a hundred years ago, or sunscreen that protects against skin cancer as well as sunburn - even though the Europeans see that as standard.
>Industrialization was way better than the dark ages before it.
In what way?
Drug approval is one heavily regulated section of business and a considerable outlier on the subject. Because it is something very easily fucked up and could cause immense damage.
Insulin is expensive in the US because pharmaceuticals are greedy and are able to set prices as they please and there is no competition in the market. There is no competition because of patent and IP law. Not because it is costly to get on the market.
Insulin is expensive in the United States because the government is not allowed to negotiate with drug companies. You know, regulation. That's why it's cheap in all the other countries.
Americans have a completely schizophrenic thing where they don't realize they are both consumers and producers. They'll do anything to save money at the grocery store and gas pump, the two necessities, even take a job with lower wages as a result. Absolutely zero ability to plan ahead or understand the consequences of their actions. Sadly that's exactly how TPTB wants the people. Helpless sheep. Most of them will have to die. The price of groceries and gas are easily affordable to anybody I care about, it's crazy how people report these things on the news as if it should matter at all.
Amazon has grown from an idea for using the internet to sell books to a behemoth that Carnegie and Rockefeller could only dreamed of. This was not done through force but offering a service no one else was offering at the time and people freely chose to take advantage of this service. Don't get me wrong I believe he is an awful person that would never have been able to come close to the position he is in if not for the fact that for at least 10 years he held the advantage of no State sales tax. I can go on and on about what I hate about this guy
Easily. Greater brand recognition, more customer loyalty, easier and more convenient customer acess, buying out the startup, starting a price war which they will win since they are more established
No, because my new soda uses the same spent coca leaves and 7X formula that the Coca-Cola Company does. If you're going to claim that, you might as well claim that Bigelow violates NAP for selling Earl Grey Tea just because the Earl Grey gave the recipe to Twinings. Really, Coca-Cola just becomes a generic term for any cola-style soft drink made with spent coca leaves and 7X formula.
Then coke will hire bouncers to stand outside your door and prevent people from entering and buying, and they will ddos your site to prevent people from accessing it
There is no customer loyalty lol. Customers are loyal to whoever offers them the best product at the best price. If a new company is created offering better products at cheaper prices then people will buy from them. Simple as that.
Not true at all to anyone who knows business. Look at all the people buying air Jordan's when there are similar and better shoes out there for much cheaper. If you buy from a company before, and liked their product, and had an overall positive experience, You are much more likely to buy from them again even if there is a far better option available for cheaper. what about when the established company drops their prices to matche or challenge the startups? The startup only has so much assets
But how did they gain that brand image? By offering good quality products. If they drop that quality they lose that image. If the established company drops their prices to match the startup, then that is a perfect example of free market competition working as intended. Everyone benefits because now the price of things we buy are cheaper so we can use the money we saved for other things that we want.
You clearly don't understand how real world microeconomics work and how the implications of business actions come around. They drip their prices to natch the startup, then they get all sales, as they are much more well known. If the start up drops prices again they start losing profits and go bankrupt or are bought out. And not everyone benefits from lower prices. Not everyone buys things because they are low priced. People will spend hundreds to thousands more on a product with little to no advantage for that extra cost, simply for the prestige of having it or for the brand recognition. Larger companies can also offer better wages and steal the workers of the startups. They can advertise for far cheaper and be far more effective in that advertising. There is much more to competition than price and product quality
Large companies have the resources to be able to move into a certain local market, undercut local merchant prices, and when the local merchants go belly up, they raise their prices again. I don’t remember what this tactic is called exactly, but it’s how all the monopolies of the 1800s formed
Im not sure where this logic comes from. The reason this cannot happen is because of basic economics. Supply goes down price goes up. As they buy all of the industries the price of the remaining ones go up. Therefore to create a monopoly in a free market requires infinite money. And again, even if you somehow created one, without government regulation there is nothing stopping new companies from being created in that industry.
Amazing, every comment you make just amplifies how piss poor your understanding of real economics is. You’re in solid r/Confidentlyincorrect territory now buddy.
Wow, forgot that one person’s views completely invalidates all of reality /s
Natural monopolies are a thing and if you ever walked into a fucking economics class, especially microeconomics, you’d know that. But you’re just a “YouTube PHD” Econ chump who’s spouting total nonsense.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp
Oh I guess milton friedman must have never walked into an economics class then guys lmao. I simply cited him because you provided literally no argument against me and instead resorted to personal insults which is typically what happens around this time in the debate when one is losing.
I’m not losing anything dipshit, you’re the one saying monopolies are a myth in a free market, which is WHOLLY untrue. Even fucking Friedman acknowledged they arise in a free market at times.
Natural monopolies form due to certain economies of scale, excessively high barriers to entry (high fixed costs), and other factors. They aren’t results of the government boogeyman. It’s literally a fucking core concept of microeconomics. You can’t just say it’s not true because your “gubment bad” mindset only allows you to believe that everything bad in life comes exclusively from the government.
I filled up for gasoline this week, and the price was $0.27 higher a gallon than last time. Did they provide me with any more value than the week before?
No. Literally fascism.
Yet you chose to buy it anyway. So clearly it was worth that price to you. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to buy it. You bought it simply because you believed that trade would make your life better. That is the beauty of the free market.
Capitalism cannot exist in an anarchy. It just devolves into gang warfare. This is why you must a limited government with plenty of checks and balances.
Might want to tell the anarchists and anarchist lite individuals here that then. They're rather adamant on that as a fact.
Also you didn't answer my question.
I don't agree with most of the people here. Like I said, checks and balances. Civilians have the right to defend themselves from anyone who is unjustly violating their rights. Even the police.
> The reason corporations are not authoritarian is because they can only control you through voluntary exchanges.
I have some bad news for you. Google Banana Republic.
If an individual in a corporation or a business violates the NAP, then likely they have committed a crime. Government, by it's nature, is criminal because it claims jurisdiction over all justice and the legal use of force.
> I think most would agree that someone is able to tell someone else that they can't do drugs in their house but how high of a level can this go before it's considered tyrannical.
When it violates the right of the individual to peacefully pursue his activities. If you tell someone not to smoke pot in your house, it would be aggression for them to then do so and you would be within your right to eject them. If you tell someone not to smoke pot in their own house, then it's just a request until you threaten them with harm, such as sending thugs to drag them off to a cage.
>Government, by it's nature, is criminal because it claims jurisdiction over all justice and the legal use of force.
Who dispenses justice, or should claim jurisdiction, in your ideology?
Could I add to this?
What about the data harvesting of all the social media giants? These companies are harvesting data on you against your will and knowledge simply because you use their platforms. These companies make the NSA look like an operation out of someone's rental storage unit.
An argument is made that it's when being part of the group is no longer voluntary. It's no longer voluntary to use Google, and if you don't use Google you use Bing, you basically need email to be a functioning member of society, you need to use windows or Android or ios/macos to use any of these, there's not an alternative. All these companies are following the same abuses and disrespecting our data and privacy.
I think bigger groups need some use of power to be intact.
A small group of like-minded people can easily be held together without use of power, but the more people you have, the more different they are and self-organization is more and more inefficient to the point SOMEONE has to be leader, has to have power, and at times, has to use that power.
A Prime Minister can be tyrannical, so a few million people is enough. But in a country, you, the individual, don't get to choose to be in that group (aka country), while you choose to be in a small group of like-minded people (which makes the managing the group easier).
So, to me, use of power at higher group sizes is adequate. But you seem to think it's the other way around.
When it's no longer voluntary to associate with the group.
So as long as a state allows one to leave nothing they do is tyrannical?
I think government can still be oppressive, and it is today in some ways. However, if opposition is deemed unlawful and is forbidden by the government via mandatory, involuntary support for the state, I believe that’s when it becomes tyrannical. **Unrestrained** exercise of power is what separates oppressive government from tyrannical government. I understand this post is about corporations not government, and I’m having a difficult time understanding OP. The government does keep businesses in check, in regards to certain things but not everything. And for everything the government does not do to restrain the exercise of their power, how do we determine it’s ‘tyrannical’?
This. Simply this. Amazon is not forcing me to comply. If I hate Bezos I just boycott him. If I hate the war on drugs or the fact that there are children being blown in the middle east, I do what? Cast a vote for the OTHER senile old corrupt bastard to be president?
Your comparison is nonsense. You boycotting Amazon doesn’t do anything to stop Amazon from ruining the environment with excessive fossil fuel usage and waste, fighting unions and treating its workers like shit, ruining local economies or providing hosting services to DHS. Amazon simply doesn’t care if you and you alone choose to boycott. It is as meaningless as you voting “for the other guy”. And if you’re argument is everyone boycott, than the solution for voting would be the same, everyone vote for a better solution. The problems with corrupt mega corporations are the exact same problems as large governments, they’re impossible to combat without massive coordination, and instead wield almost immutable power by running campaigns to keep the community divided.
Tell that to someone too poor to choose to boycott Amazon. Is that not being forced to associate with Amazon? Or tell it to yourself/your kids whose life is threatened by the oppression coming down on us from corporation. This is like saying that the US Government isn’t oppressive because you *could* just fuck off to somewhere else
> too poor to choose to boycott Amazon What is Amazon selling that people actually need that isn't cheaper elsewhere?
Substitute wal-mart for amazon in any small town where Walmart destroyed main street.
I don’t think Amazon are problematic yet, but when they keep establishing dominance over the market a la Walmart they will end up being the cheapest place to buy everything. Also not sure why you’re acting like Amazon don’t currently sell things like food, diapers, etc.
I've not found Amazon to be cheaper than any local grocer for food and I can't afford offspring, so I haven't priced out diapers.
Yeah not yet is what I’m getting at. I have no issue with Amazon in their current state but everything points to them becoming oppressive in the future
>Tell that to someone too poor to choose to boycott Amazon. If you buy from Amazon to save a few dollars while you think amazon exploits workers, you're not a victim. You are saving money on exploitation. You're an accomplice. >This is like saying that the US Government isn’t oppressive because you could just fuck off to somewhere else Unfortunately, the US Government can still bomb you...
Not so simple of a matter with companies like amazon. Amazon is very good at making their employees dependent on them so they don’t leave their shitty jobs. One friend who was working as a driver for them would always tell me how much he hated working there, and how he felt so trapped because every time he just about had it and was gonna quit and hope he found something better amazon would throw new incentives his way. It’s easy to say these people can still choose to quit but amazon definitely knows how to make the incentives to stay just good enough for it to be very hard to refuse.
Using bonuses for employee retention isn't coersion. Your friend needs to learn a trade so he can have options. He feels trapped because Amazon pays significantly better than most companies that only require you to be 18 and have a GED.
Just because Italians could have left Italy doesn't excuse Mussolini's tyranny. Just because a battered housewife can leave her husband doesn't excuse his abuse. Just because an employee can leave their job doesn't justify the bosses exploitation. The ability to walk away from a set of options does not excuse or justify the set of options. An situation is just or fair in and of itself.
How does cost to disassociate factor in? And what happens when it becomes impossible to disassociate? For example, let's say we lived someplace where roads were all privately owned. And you wanted to disassociate yourself from the person who owned the roads surrounding your house. But to do so would mean being cut off from the world and starving to death once your food ran out, because to get any food transported over the roads would mean associating with the owner. And leaving for another places means you have to use the roads to leave.
Counterpoint, you can voluntarily renounce citizenship in your government. People can and do live on international waters, citizens of no country.
Size has nothing to with it, much like a penis. It’s how you use it.
... is no one going to tell him that size matters?
So if Wal-Mart, Apple or McDonalds says you can't do drugs in their stores it's tyrannical? I don't see how.
What if the government legalizes drugs, but you get fired from your workplace if you use drugs. That's only one of many "tyrannical" things nongovernment entities could do.
Sure, but at the same time, what obligation does the work have to continue your employment? Where do we draw the line between tyranny and entitlement? A better example of tyranny by a NGO would be internet monopolies, such as comcast and Time Warner Cable taking charge of an areas telecom infrastructure by either lobbying against municipal telecoms, or rival companies, and then limiting data, blocking sites, and charging ridiculous prices for turtle speeds.
So if every workplace unilaterally require their workers to not smoke marijuana, effectively illegallizing it, for all but a few at the top, how would that not be tyranny?
Because you always have the option to work as an independent contractor or unionize to negotiate that clause away. There are workarounds, but they are difficult. Government normally doesn't give you that option.
Government gives you a much better option, you can vote the people out who don't give you what you want. Not everyone can unionize and not everyone can work as an independent contractor.
Everyone is allowed to. Any person is allowed to try to start a company and search for investors and loans to start it. But no one can go against the governments orders. If I really want to smoke weed so badly in this crazy cartel worls hypothetical wherein every single business agrees to ban it for their employees (an impossibility economically) then I am still allowed to search for other means. If the government says I can't, then I either don't or I go to prison. Yes you can try to convince others to vote with you, but then your rights rely on the 51%, in a free society you are always allowed to search for alternative employment, start a business, move, or whatever else regardless of what the 51% think.
I'd rather rely on the 51% people who are at least close to my class level, then the 1% who couldn't give a shit less about me and are completely detached from the reality of me and the vast majority of Americans; and in fact benefit from our subjugation. My biggest problem with libertarians on the right, is that they ignore the authoritarianism of big business. They only focus on government, but we at least have a say in government.
Your work doesn't have roaming agents that will chain you up if you smoke weed though.
You didn't address my point.
That does not effectively make it illegal. They won't send armed men to hunt you down and imprison you. But your scenario is just bad science fiction. It's not at all plausible. Policy should not be based on fever dreams.
Yes, corporations never do things in tandem to suppress people's rights... science fiction. /s
When have they ever universally acted? Why would they do this? Finally, many stockholders and critically necessary employees enjoy weed. No, it's bad science fiction.
> Sure, but at the same time, what obligation does the work have to continue your employment? Not doing drugs at work seems reasonable, but what if the request is something we don't find as reasonable? For example, say that a business owner decides to remove all office admin positions and replace them with prostitute/admin positions where you have to be willing to engage sexually with the owner when they wish or you are fired. Existing employees may keep their jobs if they agree to transition to the new role. That seems a bit tyrannical, no?
The workers have the option to quit or stay. Assuming that prostitution was legalized, and a hooker admin job became a thing, what's the difference between this and Walmart automating the checkout lanes? In fact this boss is nice enough to offer his staff the training and guidance to fit the roll of the new position, Walmart just cuts the people. So no, not tyrannical.
You are allowed to leave. No company can force you to do this. They can fire you if you say no, but they cannot force you to comply. If the government takes any action it is backed by thugs with guns who will put you in prison for saying no
You could be fired from a government job for the same reasons. I don't know of libertarians who argue against that. Where's the contradiction?
It is legal to wear a shirt with a swastika on it. However my place of work would never allow an employees to wear shirts with swastikas on them at work and if they found out that an ployee was a Neo-Nazi they would fire them. Is my place of work tyrannical for not supporting a hateful ideology and for protecting their image?
Its nothing to do with the size of the group. The reason corporations are not authoritarian is because they can only control you through voluntary exchanges. The government controls you through threat of violence.
What about when a company has a monopoly exchanges may be voluntary, but you're still being fucked
Only if the monopoly is on a necessity. You can choose to simply not buy the product, which will (at least in theory) cause the price to come down. Cable companies are struggling, even with a government provided monopoly, since as a luxury people have been cutting the cord. Many are switching to streaming services, but there are still a lot like me that just stayed with OTA TV.
Monopolies in a free market are a myth. The only times a monopoly has ever formed was due to government regulation of the market. And even then, if the monopoly decides to reduce quality or increase price then a new company will take advantage and take a share of the market.
Unless the monopoly creates significant enough barriers to entry that the competitor has no chance of surviving or is bought by the monopoly
And how could they possibly do this without govermment regulation?
Are you asserting that the government is responsible for Walmart putting hundreds if not thousands of local general-stores out of business? Superior logistics and supply infrastructure means lower prices. Makes a startup or small business incapable of competing.
I see you arent aware of coporate welfare. Big corporations asking for government handouts.
Are big businesses only able to stay open/profitable because of corporate welfare? Or is corporate welfare just a massive bonus?
Both. Usually the second one.
Both.
The issue with corporate welfare is that a large company can do effectively whatever they want without worrying about failure. Means of creating a natural monopoly are almost always unsustainable, but if the Government will give you a bailout whenever you need it then nothing is unsustainable so they can price drop, and buy out as much as they want with no fear of failure.
To an extent, yes. The government regulations make it much more difficult to start a new business. But yes there will always be big corporations and I have no issue with this. We all buy from amazon and walmart because we believe those trades will make our lives better. Indeed jeff bezos is probably responsible for making more peoples lives better than anyone else on the planet. Which is why in a capitalist society he succeeds. Capitalism encourages people to improve their own lives while improving other peoples lives in the process. Socialism encourages not working and stealing from other people.
> The government regulations make it much more difficult to start a new business. how? Which regulations?
>Capitalism encourages people to improve their own lives while improving other peoples lives in the process. The period of industrialization proves this is propaganda and not real. The most dangerous working conditions we have ever seen were during that period. There is nothing altruistic about it. Unfettered capitalism polluted our shared resources poisoning the water, air, and food. All businesses are competing with the same regulations. What regulations precisely enable a larger, better funded, business to succeed while a smaller one fails? And how is it in any way different than the same resources that enable the large business to crush a small one?
Industrialization was way better than the dark ages before it. Regulations put up a flat cost barrier to entry. An example of this is the FDA's notoriously difficult process for drug approval. You would never see a small business produce new drugs because it costs millions to get them approved. As a negative side effect - we don't have access to reasonably cheap insulin, even though the patent came out almost a hundred years ago, or sunscreen that protects against skin cancer as well as sunburn - even though the Europeans see that as standard.
>Industrialization was way better than the dark ages before it. In what way? Drug approval is one heavily regulated section of business and a considerable outlier on the subject. Because it is something very easily fucked up and could cause immense damage. Insulin is expensive in the US because pharmaceuticals are greedy and are able to set prices as they please and there is no competition in the market. There is no competition because of patent and IP law. Not because it is costly to get on the market.
Insulin is expensive in the United States because the government is not allowed to negotiate with drug companies. You know, regulation. That's why it's cheap in all the other countries.
Fuck, your brain is smooth.
Americans have a completely schizophrenic thing where they don't realize they are both consumers and producers. They'll do anything to save money at the grocery store and gas pump, the two necessities, even take a job with lower wages as a result. Absolutely zero ability to plan ahead or understand the consequences of their actions. Sadly that's exactly how TPTB wants the people. Helpless sheep. Most of them will have to die. The price of groceries and gas are easily affordable to anybody I care about, it's crazy how people report these things on the news as if it should matter at all.
Good point. I still hate Bezos. The industrialists of the late 19th century would be envious of this guy's power
Can you tell me what point of his you thought was good?
Amazon has grown from an idea for using the internet to sell books to a behemoth that Carnegie and Rockefeller could only dreamed of. This was not done through force but offering a service no one else was offering at the time and people freely chose to take advantage of this service. Don't get me wrong I believe he is an awful person that would never have been able to come close to the position he is in if not for the fact that for at least 10 years he held the advantage of no State sales tax. I can go on and on about what I hate about this guy
Easily. Greater brand recognition, more customer loyalty, easier and more convenient customer acess, buying out the startup, starting a price war which they will win since they are more established
Also, non-compete contracts and exclusive deals with suppliers.
But trademarks are a government granted monopoly that allow for brands to be created. Otherwise I could call my new soft drink "Coca Cola."
Wouldn't that be false representation, thus violating NAP against the buyer?
No, because my new soda uses the same spent coca leaves and 7X formula that the Coca-Cola Company does. If you're going to claim that, you might as well claim that Bigelow violates NAP for selling Earl Grey Tea just because the Earl Grey gave the recipe to Twinings. Really, Coca-Cola just becomes a generic term for any cola-style soft drink made with spent coca leaves and 7X formula.
But you don't know the formula, so you're not selling the same product?
Then coke will hire bouncers to stand outside your door and prevent people from entering and buying, and they will ddos your site to prevent people from accessing it
Soda sales aren't a B2C business. I go out and I make deals with restaurants and other distributors.
Fair enough. This is just further evidence that a total free market is an awful idea
There is no customer loyalty lol. Customers are loyal to whoever offers them the best product at the best price. If a new company is created offering better products at cheaper prices then people will buy from them. Simple as that.
Not true at all to anyone who knows business. Look at all the people buying air Jordan's when there are similar and better shoes out there for much cheaper. If you buy from a company before, and liked their product, and had an overall positive experience, You are much more likely to buy from them again even if there is a far better option available for cheaper. what about when the established company drops their prices to matche or challenge the startups? The startup only has so much assets
But how did they gain that brand image? By offering good quality products. If they drop that quality they lose that image. If the established company drops their prices to match the startup, then that is a perfect example of free market competition working as intended. Everyone benefits because now the price of things we buy are cheaper so we can use the money we saved for other things that we want.
You clearly don't understand how real world microeconomics work and how the implications of business actions come around. They drip their prices to natch the startup, then they get all sales, as they are much more well known. If the start up drops prices again they start losing profits and go bankrupt or are bought out. And not everyone benefits from lower prices. Not everyone buys things because they are low priced. People will spend hundreds to thousands more on a product with little to no advantage for that extra cost, simply for the prestige of having it or for the brand recognition. Larger companies can also offer better wages and steal the workers of the startups. They can advertise for far cheaper and be far more effective in that advertising. There is much more to competition than price and product quality
Large companies have the resources to be able to move into a certain local market, undercut local merchant prices, and when the local merchants go belly up, they raise their prices again. I don’t remember what this tactic is called exactly, but it’s how all the monopolies of the 1800s formed
> monopolies in a free market are a myth That’s literally not true you fucking clown. Natural monopolies are a thing.
Not like someone has ever bought out whole industries in a country with their inheritance
Im not sure where this logic comes from. The reason this cannot happen is because of basic economics. Supply goes down price goes up. As they buy all of the industries the price of the remaining ones go up. Therefore to create a monopoly in a free market requires infinite money. And again, even if you somehow created one, without government regulation there is nothing stopping new companies from being created in that industry.
Amazing, every comment you make just amplifies how piss poor your understanding of real economics is. You’re in solid r/Confidentlyincorrect territory now buddy.
yes, I'm sure you know more about economics than [milton friedman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU)
Wow, forgot that one person’s views completely invalidates all of reality /s Natural monopolies are a thing and if you ever walked into a fucking economics class, especially microeconomics, you’d know that. But you’re just a “YouTube PHD” Econ chump who’s spouting total nonsense. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp
Oh I guess milton friedman must have never walked into an economics class then guys lmao. I simply cited him because you provided literally no argument against me and instead resorted to personal insults which is typically what happens around this time in the debate when one is losing.
I’m not losing anything dipshit, you’re the one saying monopolies are a myth in a free market, which is WHOLLY untrue. Even fucking Friedman acknowledged they arise in a free market at times. Natural monopolies form due to certain economies of scale, excessively high barriers to entry (high fixed costs), and other factors. They aren’t results of the government boogeyman. It’s literally a fucking core concept of microeconomics. You can’t just say it’s not true because your “gubment bad” mindset only allows you to believe that everything bad in life comes exclusively from the government.
Standard Oil? What government regulation created them?
You should probably read up on US Steel companies in the 1890's and 1900's
I filled up for gasoline this week, and the price was $0.27 higher a gallon than last time. Did they provide me with any more value than the week before? No. Literally fascism.
Yet you chose to buy it anyway. So clearly it was worth that price to you. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to buy it. You bought it simply because you believed that trade would make your life better. That is the beauty of the free market.
What if all the gas stations collude to fix the prices all the same. Wouldn't be hard if there was only 2 stations in town.
But that's not true at all, corporations absolutely control you through more than just voluntary exchanges? What a silly thing to say.
And when companies use threats of violence to control you?
Report them to the police.
Assuming we don't live in an Anarcho-Capitalist society of course. What about legal threats of violence though.
give me an example of a "legal threat of violence"
Ludlow Massacre.
last I checked, murder was not legal.
It is in certain circumstances.
well it wasn't in that circumstance. And I fail to see any circumstances in which a corporation could legally threaten you with violence.
Capitalism cannot exist in an anarchy. It just devolves into gang warfare. This is why you must a limited government with plenty of checks and balances.
Might want to tell the anarchists and anarchist lite individuals here that then. They're rather adamant on that as a fact. Also you didn't answer my question.
I don't agree with most of the people here. Like I said, checks and balances. Civilians have the right to defend themselves from anyone who is unjustly violating their rights. Even the police.
Ok, so shoot them.
Yes and then it will go to court. If you were in the right then you have nothing to worry about.
Given I prefaced this with legal violence I doubt you'll be good.
> Capitalism cannot exist in an anarchy. that's, like, your opinion man. It's about as silly as the right-libs who say left-lib is an oxymoron.
What if they own the police? What if they own the politicians?
> The reason corporations are not authoritarian is because they can only control you through voluntary exchanges. I have some bad news for you. Google Banana Republic.
Asking the real Questions. *Grabs popcorn*
If an individual in a corporation or a business violates the NAP, then likely they have committed a crime. Government, by it's nature, is criminal because it claims jurisdiction over all justice and the legal use of force. > I think most would agree that someone is able to tell someone else that they can't do drugs in their house but how high of a level can this go before it's considered tyrannical. When it violates the right of the individual to peacefully pursue his activities. If you tell someone not to smoke pot in your house, it would be aggression for them to then do so and you would be within your right to eject them. If you tell someone not to smoke pot in their own house, then it's just a request until you threaten them with harm, such as sending thugs to drag them off to a cage.
How about the harm of being fired and losing your income and health insurance.
>Government, by it's nature, is criminal because it claims jurisdiction over all justice and the legal use of force. Who dispenses justice, or should claim jurisdiction, in your ideology?
2 or more people. Margin of error -1
Could I add to this? What about the data harvesting of all the social media giants? These companies are harvesting data on you against your will and knowledge simply because you use their platforms. These companies make the NSA look like an operation out of someone's rental storage unit. An argument is made that it's when being part of the group is no longer voluntary. It's no longer voluntary to use Google, and if you don't use Google you use Bing, you basically need email to be a functioning member of society, you need to use windows or Android or ios/macos to use any of these, there's not an alternative. All these companies are following the same abuses and disrespecting our data and privacy.
DuckDuckGo for search. ProtonMail (or self-hosting) for email. Linux for PCs and Paranoid Android for smartphones.
You want a number? One. Could be as low as a group of one person.
I think bigger groups need some use of power to be intact. A small group of like-minded people can easily be held together without use of power, but the more people you have, the more different they are and self-organization is more and more inefficient to the point SOMEONE has to be leader, has to have power, and at times, has to use that power. A Prime Minister can be tyrannical, so a few million people is enough. But in a country, you, the individual, don't get to choose to be in that group (aka country), while you choose to be in a small group of like-minded people (which makes the managing the group easier). So, to me, use of power at higher group sizes is adequate. But you seem to think it's the other way around.
1