Government Versus Corporations

I'll take a stab at this government versus corporations thing.

The one thing libertarians do is rail against encroaching government (especially in matters of private life)but don't voice enough, according to critics, concern over is the threat of an MNC. Maybe they're less inclined because a corporation is a legitimate enterprise. The fear on the left is a business becoming a monopoly to the point of becoming a de facto government. My friend once said of the two evils, he'd choose government because they have a duty - in principal I added - to protect its citizens whereas corporations hide behind self-interested stockholders - that have a function in wealth creation I added.

However, if one of their (libertines) tenets is "it's all good until coercion is used" don't corporations use coercion to influence the democratic process? Which doesn't say much for a government that let's itself be pushed around. Not unless it's a government run by TDR of course.

Now we pretty much have corporations and governments fused together. The laws in place do less damage, it seems, to big corporations and serve more as an irritant to small and medium size businesses.

Talk amongst yourselves.


  1. I find it very simple. We need to end the relationship between the two, because corporations are fundamentally corrupt and government is fundamentally corruptible.

    My problem is corporations is that they are borderless kingships passed down to heirs who earned nothing. They aren't as noble as free marketeers would like to imagine. There should be a clear line between business and government, because when those assholes get together, it's the lower and middle classes who suffer every time.

    The way to do this is to enact strict campaign finance reform. Rich people should not be enabled to buy political influence. It should be a crime to donate large sums of money to public officials, just as it is a crime to give a police officer a large sum of money. Sure you aren't "bribing" him... you're just giving him some money and he's just looking the other way... no crime here, right?

    And I personally do not trust the government more because they have a "duty." Who the hell cares about that nonsense? I like the fact that the government is not put in place beyond the control of the people. We elect our officials, and even if we have 100% corruption right this moment, we can elect new officials. We are utterly powerless to stop corporations from doing whatever they please, which is why someone ought to have oversight over their activities. It's just easier to allow the government to do it than to force corporations to take part in the election process.

  2. So it all passes through strict campaign financial reform?

    Would that be enough?

  3. Just thought of something. I hope you believe this applies to unions who give money to Democrats.

  4. Unions shouldn't exist. The government should be doing their job, and unions are nothing but unelected gangsters wielding power they have no right to have.

    The other thing you need is good education, because if the population is stupid, the leadership will be as well.

    Regarding the debate in general: aren't you alarmed when one person in the government wields too much power? This is why it is spread out. Why, then do we not bat an eye when a private individual wields the economic power of a medium sized nation?

  5. You're getting into Alberti, Aristotle and Plato territory here with philosopher-kings and liberally trained and educated citizen. And I totally concur.

    That's a good question about the medium sized country. Canada can fit into this in that the PM has a basic total power. More so than the President.


Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.