[Leninist]

So libertarians love to tell us why the government is evil, private interests are good. But what about the corporations? why is it OK for a corporation to propagandize you and force you to do what they want by economic oppression, rather than political oppression? And for those of you who may regard the corporation as evil, what have you to say to the theory that any society based on capitalist self-interest will inevitably develop corporations as personal interests meld from small businesses to large?

[SolarCross]

Technically a "corporation" is just a so called artificial person, a legal fiction as it is called, that allows numerous individuals to hold property and make contracts as a single identity. So technically, communes, co-operatives, most charities, religious institutions, many clubs, political parties, sporting teams and of course governments are also corporations.

[JohnRawls]

Not exactly, their purposes of existance are different. Corporations exist to achieve profit while those other organizations have different goals.

[Leninist]

That was my belief as well. And that is certainly how they are defined and thought of in most countries today.

[Joe Liberty]

So libertarians love to tell us why the government is evil, private interests are good. But what about the corporations? why is it OK for a corporation to propagandize you and force you to do what they want by economic oppression, rather than political oppression?

Let's deal with that faulty premise first: libertarians oppose coercion no matter its source. But a corporation by itself can't force you to do anything. They have to offer you a product or service that you want to buy, at a price that you can afford, or they don't get your business. There is no oppression or force involved.

Only when a coporation becomes a rent-seeker (lobbying government for favorable laws, or for restrictions to competition, or for bailouts and such) does coercion become involved. Libertarians do not support rent-seeking.

[Husky]

But you do agree, Joe, that in the case of a monopoly, or natural monopoly, where essential goods are supplied, that corporations can exert damaging influence over people? 'Unwritten' coercion, if you will.

[SolarCross]

But you do agree, Joe, that in the case of a monopoly, or natural monopoly, where essential goods are supplied, that corporations can exert damaging influence over people? 'Unwritten' coercion, if you will.

The only corporation that does that or could do that is the one that calls itself government.

[Joe Liberty]

But you do agree, Joe, that in the case of a monopoly, or natural monopoly, where essential goods are supplied, that corporations can exert damaging influence over people? 'Unwritten' coercion, if you will.

Yes, but I also believe that a monopoly is extremely difficult to reach, and impossible to maintain, without the help of a government.

[JohnRawls]

Yes, but I also believe that a monopoly is extremely difficult to reach, and impossible to maintain, without the help of a government.

Realy, look back at americas 1880-1940s a lot of companies were monopolies back in the day before the government didnt seperate them. Also nowadays companies like intel and apple are also something near monopolies although they spam in several sectors. Microsoft is a monopolist also in several sectors.

For example, this is not healthy. Not most up to date image but it describes the situation.

[Beal]

Not exactly, their purposes of existance are different. Corporations exist to achieve profit while those other organizations have different goals.

Nope. Thousands of organizations are incorporated in the US that don't exist to achieve profit. They are charitable, mutual benefit, and religious organizations. Taxizen pretty much nailed the defining characteristic of a corporation. It is first and foremost a legal entity that allows it to operate with a degree of personhood. It can sue and be sued, negotiate contracts, etc.. Not that it matters, but what you are discussing is "for-profit corporations," and more specifically, "large, for-profit corporations."

[Joe Liberty]

Realy, look back at americas 1880-1940s a lot of companies were monopolies back in the day before the government didnt seperate them.

Give me some concrete examples and we can take a look and see just how they got that way. I'll wager government was involved. Remember the scary stories they told us in high school about "robber barons"? Mostly those are moralistic fabrications (that, sadly, persist to this day). The real bad guys were the political entrepreneurs, they ran to government for regulations and tax breaks and contracts. They were completely on-board with so-called anti-trust legislation, as it guaranteed them a market share and helped to push their smaller competitors right out of business (something everyone should always keep in mind: whatever name is attached to a piece of legislation is usually the complete opposite of what's lurking inside.)

A look at the whole "robber baron" meme:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/libr ... ber-barons

Also nowadays companies like intel and apple are also something near monopolies although they spam in several sectors. Microsoft is a monopolist also in several sectors.

"Something near a monopoly" is not the same thing as a monopoly. Your chart shows four other competing operating systems and "other", comprised of who knows how many more. A monopoly actively stifles competition and yet, even though Microsoft has a huge share of the operating system market, you do still have a choice to purchase one from a different company. Microsoft is still subject to market forces and competition: if their next operating system is crap (as Vista was), fewer people will use it and they'll have to respond to that.

A good look at "natural" monopolies:
http://mises.org/daily/5266

In any case, back to the original questions:

...why is it OK for a corporation to propagandize you and force you to do what they want by economic oppression, rather than political oppression?

Not sure what "propagandaize" means in this context. Are you talking about advertising? In any case, a corporation by itself cannot force you to do anything, and it cannot form an "economically oppressive" monopoly without government help. So there is nothing but political oppression involved.

[Leninist]

Let's deal with that faulty premise first: libertarians oppose coercion no matter its source. But a corporation by itself can't force you to do anything. They have to offer you a product or service that you want to buy, at a price that you can afford, or they don't get your business. There is no oppression or force involved.

Only when a coporation becomes a rent-seeker (lobbying government for favorable laws, or for restrictions to competition, or for bailouts and such) does coercion become involved. Libertarians do not support rent-seeking.

Right, but If a corporation is constantly seeking a profit, won't they inevitably try to worm into government? It is far more profitable for corporations to take power. That's y they backed hitlers rise. My point is, in an initially unregulated society, what stops the cotporation from stepping In and using its economic leverage to gain more power?

[JohnRawls]

A look at the whole "robber baron" meme:

I did definately look at it. The 2 comments at the bottom were amusing.

along265

How can you possibly suggest that J. D. Rockefeller was anything less than a scoundrel. Are you at all aware of the Ludlow Massacre and Rockefeller's subsequent PR campaign which was carefully managed to cleanse his public image? The idea of creating employment and remunerative wages is a very thin disguise for Ronnie Raygun style trickle-down economics. Workers get wages while Rockefeller gets riches. In other words, Rockefeller believed in investing in people as if they were any other kind of non-liquid asset. The truth is that people are a liquid asset, inasmuch as they do bleed, and this article is a weak rationalization and one which only a very sick and misguided mind could take seriously.

Roy Clement Jr

Anybody who thinks the Robber Barons were good guy's needs to wake up and smell the rotting flesh of those they trampeled over and there were many. Andrew Carnegie had no God but money a good example is his robbing of Thomas Edison just because he didn't like the way Edison handeled his money but yet he was suppose to be a real close friend of Edisons. Cornelius Vanderbilt had Pinkerton Detective Agency providing security for his railroad they killed untold numbers of men hitching a ride on one of his trains with his blessing. I was told that by old men back when I was a young teenybopper and had felt the sting of there clubs.

Give me some concrete examples and we can take a look and see just how they got that way. I'll wager government was involved. Remember the scary stories they told us in high school about "robber barons"? Mostly those are moralistic fabrications (that, sadly, persist to this day). The real bad guys were the political entrepreneurs, they ran to government for regulations and tax breaks and contracts. They were completely on-board with so-called anti-trust legislation, as it guaranteed them a market share and helped to push their smaller competitors right out of business (something everyone should always keep in mind: whatever name is attached to a piece of legislation is usually the complete opposite of what's lurking inside.)

The largest example is Standard oil. Was cought in abusing its monopolistic powers in conjunction with RailRoad transport and also stole more than 50 million of us dallors which was a humongouse sum by 1890s -1900s standard. 50 million doesnt sound much i guess but back in 1890 that was a lot, it was on the scale of the global depression. The difference is that back in the day, when the government learned of that they freaking lynched Standard Oil while in modern times, not really.

[Joe Liberty]

Right, but If a corporation is constantly seeking a profit, won't they inevitably try to worm into government?

I wouldn't say 'inevitably', as I don't believe they all would, but generally, yes.

My point is, in an initially unregulated society, what stops the cotporation from stepping In and using its economic leverage to gain more power?

In my opinion they only would be 'stopped' by limiting the government in such a way that it can't write favorable legislation for them. It's the power of coercion that they're after, the power to regulate smaller competitors out of business, the power to get tax breaks and no-bid government contracts and so on. Without government a corporation has no power over you at all, you can just take your money elsewhere.

[Joe Liberty]

The largest example is Standard oil. Was cought in abusing its monopolistic powers in conjunction with RailRoad transport and also stole more than 50 million of us dallors which was a humongouse sum by 1890s -1900s standard.

What do you mean by "Was caught in abusing its monopolistic powers"?

"...in conjunction with railroad transport..." I think you might be referring to this:

http://mises.org/daily/2317

Cornelius Vanderbilt publicly offered railroad rebates to any oil refiner who could give him the same volume of business that Rockefeller did, but since no one was as efficient as Rockefeller, no one could take him up on his offer.

Is it really "abusing monopolistic power" to enjoy economics of scale and to out-perform the competition?

The difference is that back in the day, when the government learned of that they freaking lynched Standard Oil while in modern times, not really.

The government went after Standard Oil at the behest of its competitors, who felt they needed protection from competition. The little guy certainly didn't care, he'd seen oil and kerosene prices drop dramatically thanks to Standard Oil.

If by "monopolistic power" you mean alleged predatory pricing, there's this:

In a now-classic article on the topic in the prestigious Journal of Law and Economics, John S. McGee studied the Standard Oil antitrust case and concluded not only that the company did not practice predatory pricing but also that it would have been irrational and foolish to have attempted such a scheme.

...

The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry

Here's a little insight into the USSC so-called trust busting decision, from the same article:

The court made no mention at all of the industry's economic performance; of supposed predatory pricing; of whether industry output had been restrained, as monopoly theory holds; or of any other economic factors relevant to determining harm to consumers. The mere fact that Standard Oil had organized some thirty separate divisions under one consolidated management structure (a trust) was sufficient reason to label it a monopoly and force the company to break up into a number of smaller units.

So the decision that Standard Oil was a "monopoly" was not based upon any economic reasoning at all, but rather the shrill cries of its competition and the politicians who saw the opportunity for more power.

But all those history textbooks say otherwise, don't they. I guess history really is written by the winners.

[SecretSquirrel]

I am a libertarian anarchist and oppose all States. I highly doubt that corporations could or would arise and persist in the absence of States.

[Beal]

I am a libertarian anarchist and oppose all States. I highly doubt that corporations could or would arise and persist in the absence of States.

Wouldn't joint stock companies exist? The corporation is just a legal entity invented by the state to make it more practical for a joint stock company to operate.

[SecretSquirrel]

Corporations are granted legal personhood and limited liability by the State

[Beal]

Corporations are granted legal personhood and limited liability by the State

Limited liability is not a defining characteristic of the corporate form of ownership. Personhood is. Under anarchocapitalism, wouldn't such arrangements naturally emerge? Keep in mind that personhood benefits those who deal with a corporation, and not jus the corporation itself. Personhood is, for example, the ability to sue and be sued.