[ReallyBig]

The examples that you give don't really work in your favour on this. As much as China is State capitalist it is not well regulated while countires like Honk Kong and Taiwan are highly regulated countries with norms for working hours, safety standards etc. The only reason companies could do that in China is because of either no oversight or no regulation. Also the example is not fully comparable, your comparing 2 countries with different levels of economical development. Its fair to compare lets say Western Europe and USA. Not South Korea and North Korea.

The government is heavily involved in their economy, corruption and nepotism are rampant. China has laws on the books regarding pollution for example but because their government is so corrupt they ignore the vast majority of the pollution that does happen in that country because companies pay off officials to look the other way.. Only in very recent years after several high profile incidences occurred as the Chinese government given lip service to actually enforcing the laws. Whether they do enforce laws remains to be seen.

As far as comparisons go China has a very large middle class now so comparing China to Taiwan or Singapore is not the same as comparing North Korea and South Korea. The per capita rates are different simply because China still has hundreds of millions of people that need to rise to middle class. That doesn't happen overnight but considering that over 7 million people per month rise to the middle class it is happening very quickly. Taiwan has some of the most effective government services in the world precisely because they moved to privatize much of it to get it out of the hands of the KMT.

One thing that should be noted is that there is no independent judicial system in China. No one can sue a company or even another person that is protected by the Party because the Party runs the judicial system. Thus corporations in collusion with the government can run rampant which is the fear that you seem to have. That is no the case in the US or in the rest of the developed world. You can in fact sue companies for negligence or causing harm. Everyone has heard about the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit years ago. The legal system is far more effective at handling things of this nature. You can google all the pollution that empties into the Gulf. That is all legal and the fisherman cannot sue anyone for damaging their livelihoods. Farmers are essentially a protected class in this country. Imagine if fisherman could sue the farmers for using all those pesticides and herbicides. How quickly would they move to adopt better designed crops that require less chemicals. Imagine if people could sue farmers for growing ethanol corn which is horrible for the environment.

[Nunt]

First off, evil is subjective and if we start moralizing politics we will never get anywhere.

An organization is not evil for looking out for it's interests, a corporations interest is always to profit. A corporation will use all available means that may maximize it's profits. This is not necessarily evil, but getting rid of competition and forming a monopoly charging enormously unfair prices is just one likely result.

The governments interests depend on what sort of government you create. The politicians who run the US government get most of their money, and thus their power, from corporate donations and the very rich. It is in their interests to continue to get that money. Thus most politics is run to benefit corporations and the very rich, or to maintain votes.

Both organizations simply follow their own interests, it has nothing to do with them simply getting power and doing "evil".

So you have just proposed a way how a very powerful and potentially aggressive organization can be kept in check peacefully by others who do not have the same military power. This illustrates my point.

[mikema63]

I honestly tried rereading what I said to try and figure out where you got that and I failed. In the whole post I never explicitly wrote about military power. Obviously the government would have more power than a single corporation, and indeed all corporations since they would tend to use the government to protect their interests.

[Truth To Power]

So you have just proposed a way how a very powerful and potentially aggressive organization can be kept in check peacefully by others who do not have the same military power. This illustrates my point.

Different situation. Society's military is constituted to serve society through civilian (democratic) control. Private militaries are constituted to serve their private owners through whatever means they think they can get away with.

[Nunt]

Different situation. Society's military is constituted to serve society through civilian (democratic) control. Private militaries are constituted to serve their private owners through whatever means they think they can get away with.

There is no difference between what currently keeps a nation's military under control and what would keep a private military under control. If a general today wants to create a military coup, he would need to overcome the following difficulties: 1) he would need to convince a lot of people to act against the current social norms and to commit crimes in his name, 2) he would need to convince all those people to murder and die for his cause, 3) while preparing for the coup, he needs to amass the necessary military hardware and make plans without being detected. If he could do that, then he could quickly sever the head of democratic control and install a military junta.

It isn't that easy to install a military junta. But it does happen sometimes.

A private firm would face the exact same difficulties. They'd need to convince their employees to murder and die for them. This won't be so easy in a society with Western norms. There are a lot of criminals, but most people wouldn't sign up for killing and maiming and whatever even if the money is good. There would be many more people wanting to stop that. But it all depends on the existing societal norms. In Syria and Iraq it was possible for IS to rise and recruit a dedicated army. While the private firm is making preparations for its coup, it is acting illegally. So even if there is no democratic control, its plans could still come out because a lot of people have an incentive to monitor such organisations closely and shut them down if any illegal activity is detected.

The usual pro state reasoning is:
-without a government you'll have private armies running amock
-those private armies can only be stopped by an even bigger army
-but to stop that bigger army from running amock, no army is necessary. We just need a rulebook and some elections

But if we can stop the biggest army that has a monopoly on all the heavy weaponry without an army, why can't we stop much smaller armies who don't have the resources, nor the legitimacy that government gives them? Is an election of the politician that oversees the army every four years really what keeps a government army in check? Or are there other ways that can be used to keep private armies in check as well?

[Truth To Power]

Different situation. Society's military is constituted to serve society through civilian (democratic) control. Private militaries are constituted to serve their private owners through whatever means they think they can get away with.

There is no difference between what currently keeps a nation's military under control and what would keep a private military under control.

Absurd garbage refuted by all history.

If a general today wants to create a military coup, he would need to overcome the following difficulties: 1) he would need to convince a lot of people to act against the current social norms and to commit crimes in his name, 2) he would need to convince all those people to murder and die for his cause, 3) while preparing for the coup, he needs to amass the necessary military hardware and make plans without being detected. If he could do that, then he could quickly sever the head of democratic control and install a military junta.

4) and by far most important, he would face the forcible opposition of people, probably the majority, within his army who were loyal to their oaths and society, not to him. The private army's general faces no such problem, as his army is already loyal to him and their own economic interests, not any oath or society.

It isn't that easy to install a military junta. But it does happen sometimes.

It's actually pretty easy if there is no government to stop you, as proved by what happened in Western Europe after Roman power disappeared in the fifth century.

Why do "meeza hatesa gubmint" know-nothings always forget that all their nonsense has already been refuted by European history?

A private firm would face the exact same difficulties.

Conclusively refuted above.

They'd need to convince their employees to murder and die for them.

Nope. Wrong. OBJECTIVELY wrong. They already signed up for that.

This won't be so easy in a society with Western norms.

But very easy in a society without the Western norm of democratic governance.

There are a lot of criminals, but most people wouldn't sign up for killing and maiming and whatever even if the money is good.

You don't need a majority, or even a substantial minority, as European feudalism proved.

There would be many more people wanting to stop that.

But unable to.

But it all depends on the existing societal norms.

No, it also depends on institutions.

In Syria and Iraq it was possible for IS to rise and recruit a dedicated army.

And...?

While the private firm is making preparations for its coup, it is acting illegally.

Oh? By what standard? There's no government to make anything illegal, remember?

So even if there is no democratic control, its plans could still come out because a lot of people have an incentive to monitor such organisations closely and shut them down if any illegal activity is detected.

Shut them down HOW, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? "Illegal" according to whom?

You can't even talk about this stuff without assuming a state and government and laws.

The usual pro state reasoning is:
-without a government you'll have private armies running amock

Which has proved correct historically.

-those private armies can only be stopped by an even bigger army

Likewise proved historically.

-but to stop that bigger army from running amock, no army is necessary. We just need a rulebook and some elections

No, a different institutional basis for the army that puts elected civilians in charge, not generals, and puts soldiers' loyalty to society above their loyalty and obedience to their commanders.

But if we can stop the biggest army that has a monopoly on all the heavy weaponry without an army, why can't we stop much smaller armies who don't have the resources, nor the legitimacy that government gives them?

Because the issue of legitimacy is exactly the basis of soldiers' loyalty and obedience. This was all worked out more than 2000 years ago when Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his legions. Some people just don't want to learn from history.

Is an election of the politician that oversees the army every four years really what keeps a government army in check?

It's one part.

Or are there other ways that can be used to keep private armies in check as well?

Maybe there are, but blind faith in the market would not be one of them.

[quetzalcoatl]

So which is it? Either we can keep powerful organisations in check or we can't. If we can find a peaceful way to keep the all-powerful government in check, we should be able to find a way to keep private organisations in check as well.

The thesis is correct, but not the conclusion. Power is a function of size, and power will always be used. Institutions never abstain from exercising power, and will always fight by every means at their disposal to keep such power. This, as you have acknowledged, applies to both public and private institutions.

Eliminating government, as is implicit in your question, simply transfers the exercise of power to other hands - it does not eliminate it. Nor is it correct to assert that corporations, in the absence of restraint, would not murder or steal. Corporations rely on the state to enforce a rule-based market. Without the state, they would be forced to provide their own enforcement. This is identical to saying they would be forced to murder and steal to preserve their position.

So, yes, you are correct in asking "Which is it?" But this question cuts both ways.

Since power is a function of size, there is one (and only one) way to limit the expression of power. That is, to limit the size of all institutions, public and private. The NAP can never work in the real world. It is inevitable that some private enterprises will be more successful, and become bigger than others. As surely as the sun will rise, these bigger units will exercise whatever power they can muster to preserve and increase their power, irrespective of any abstract principles. The endgame will be a handful of 'private' groups who exercise state-like powers; in reality, they will be states.

So, to achieve what you say you want, you must abandon the NAP, and focus instead on limiting the absolute size of all institutions, directly. Hoping that power will be self-limiting or that an actual libertarian arrangement can evolve through negotiation and education is hopeless.

[Nunt]

The thesis is correct, but not the conclusion. Power is a function of size, and power will always be used. Institutions never abstain from exercising power, and will always fight by every means at their disposal to keep such power. This, as you have acknowledged, applies to both public and private institutions.

Eliminating government, as is implicit in your question, simply transfers the exercise of power to other hands - it does not eliminate it. Nor is it correct to assert that corporations, in the absence of restraint, would not murder or steal. Corporations rely on the state to enforce a rule-based market. Without the state, they would be forced to provide their own enforcement. This is identical to saying they would be forced to murder and steal to preserve their position.

So, yes, you are correct in asking "Which is it?" But this question cuts both ways.

Since power is a function of size, there is one (and only one) way to limit the expression of power. That is, to limit the size of all institutions, public and private. The NAP can never work in the real world. It is inevitable that some private enterprises will be more successful, and become bigger than others. As surely as the sun will rise, these bigger units will exercise whatever power they can muster to preserve and increase their power, irrespective of any abstract principles. The endgame will be a handful of 'private' groups who exercise state-like powers; in reality, they will be states.

So, to achieve what you say you want, you must abandon the NAP, and focus instead on limiting the absolute size of all institutions, directly. Hoping that power will be self-limiting or that an actual libertarian arrangement can evolve through negotiation and education is hopeless.

True. Eliminating government does not eliminate power. But corporations do not operate in the absence of restraint. In my opinion, corporation face a lot more restraint when trying to wield power. This is because the government has a very unqiue position in our society and because of that is protected from a lot more restraints than a corporation. The government is funded by taxes, not by volunary transcations. If people dislike a corporation, they can stop buying its products. If people dislike the government, you can't refuse to pay taxes. This link between income and power is very important: if you can commit crimes without decreasing your income.
Second, governments are generally viewed as legitimate users of force. So it will be easier for governments to convince pilots to drop napalm on schools and still convince those pilots they are fighting for a good cause. Further more, the public is more willing to cover up and turn a blind eye to supposed crimes. Private corporations enjoy no such legitimacy and in general, the bigger they get, the more suspicious people will be of the corporations. Employees of that corporation committing crimes will view themselves as criminals and their environment will view them as criminals as well. If you return from a government war (even if that war is considered unjust), you're hailed as a hero. If you return from a corporate war, you'll be a criminal. Thats a major deterrent.

You assume that if corporations become big, they will act like states. For the reasons outlined above, I don't see why this should be a necessity. Corporations can become big and be kept in check. The best example of this is the government: it is a power behemoth, it is the worst possible outcome of an anarchy, nobody has the power to withstand its monopoly and still the government is bound by some rules. If we can bind the government, we should be able to bind private corporation trying to become a government.

Sure, I cannot deny the possibility that the NAP will be stable. But statists can't guarantee the stability of a democracy either.

[quetzalcoatl]

...corporations do not operate in the absence of restraint. In my opinion, corporation face a lot more restraint when trying to wield power...
...governments are generally viewed as legitimate users of force. So it will be easier for governments to convince pilots to drop napalm on schools and still convince those pilots they are fighting for a good cause...
...You assume that if corporations become big, they will act like states...

Actually, I'm saying that if corporations become big they have to act like states, as a matter of survival. I'm not singling out corporations, incidentally. This also applies to gangs, private armies, enterprises, or other groups of persons (in the absence of a state to limit their actions).

There are no inherent restraints on corporations or other private entities. Actions of any social grouping will tend over time to consolidate and expand power. The voluntarist argument only applies in a scenario where you have some practical freedom of action. The practical freedom not to purchase food, water, clothing, and shelter is limited, and becomes even more limited in the modern urban setting. The natural social evolution will be into larger, more powerful groups, acting in a way to gain advantage over rivals. Smaller groups will be gradually eliminated, and force used to prevent new competitors from arising.

Free competition is not the natural order. Competition and the suppression of competition exist in dynamic balance, with the new guys trying to open it up and established groups trying to close it down. Over time, suppression of competition is guaranteed to win, as larger groups are able to wield power to their advantage.

An outside group enforcing rules only works if it is not voluntary. If you appeal to a private court, I will simply appeal to another; there is nothing that requires me to recognize its authority. In the absence of a state, that is.

If on the other hand you recognize the need for a state, then you encounter a whole other set of problems. We have been notably unsuccessful in limiting the power of both the state and corporations, and to be quite frank there is no reason to believe that arbitrarily limiting one or the other will do anything at all.

Size translates into power. Unless you are willing to limit the size of public and private institutions, through direct intervention with force, you cannot limit their power. The NAP must be abandoned as your first order of business.

[Nunt]

Size translates into power. Unless you are willing to limit the size of public and private institutions, through direct intervention with force, you cannot limit their power. The NAP must be abandoned as your first order of business.

It would be interesting to see if your prediction holds. Can we make big corporations follow the rules without breaking the NAP or not? We both have some arguements on either side and all have some degree of validity. It comes down to which social process is the strongest?

How important are scale advantages? Does scale conquer all or not? Looking at nationstates and empires, we have never seen a global monopoly. Empires rise and fall and dozens of equal size nations can coexist. I think if your prediction about size and power about corporations holds, it should hold as well for governments: one nation will gain an advantage and conquer the rest of the world. That this has not happened so far which I believe is a positive sign that if corporations are allowed to compete on a sufficiently large scale, social norms will be enough to keep them in check.

[anticlimacus]

Libertarianism has a special meaning predominantly in the United States. In the United States, it means dedication to extreme forms of tyranny. They don’t call it that, but it’s basically corporate tyranny, meaning tyranny by unaccountable private concentrations of power, the worst kind of tyranny you can imagine.

The idea that markets will take care of concentrations of capital within the hands of a few or a few corporations has never really made much sense. In the abstract, perhaps--if we lived in a perfect market and such conditions were possible. However, economies don't develop in the abstract. They develop out of history--so how liberalizing markets is going to weaken the rich and powerful has never made much sense to me.

Essentially, by eliminating state power you do not necessarily eliminate corporate power. You simply eliminate one single means by which corporate power maintains itself--a means which also often happens to be publicly accountable. This seems to be what Chomsky is getting at, a point which is neglected by right wing libertarians.

[quetzalcoatl]

How important are scale advantages? Does scale conquer all or not? Looking at nationstates and empires, we have never seen a global monopoly. Empires rise and fall and dozens of equal size nations can coexist. I think if your prediction about size and power about corporations holds, it should hold as well for governments: one nation will gain an advantage and conquer the rest of the world.

The nation state is primarily geographic. The largest states manage a direct control over large geographic areas, limited by logistics or geographic features. The US, besides its official boundaries, manages a large extra-territorial jurisdiction over many nations of Europe and Southeast Asia; these nations are officially sovereign, but have ceded much of their economic independence. My prediction, following on the previous posts, would be that nations not yet controlled in this fashion will eventually be absorbed into larger spheres of influence. Once you have half a dozen such empires of relatively equal size and strength, the situation becomes relatively more stable. Smaller nations may be chipped away at the margins (Ukraine) but massive changes become too costly.

Note that within these spheres the drive toward total hegemony becomes overwhelming. The loss of civil freedoms, even over the past 15 years, has been remarkable and shows no signs of abating. My thesis is that, given free reign, corporations or other private entities would develop similar geographic areas of control, within which they would attempt to suppress all competing power centers. To the average citizen the end result would be much the same whether such hegemonies call themselves states or not.

[Truth To Power]

My thesis is that, given free reign, corporations or other private entities would develop similar geographic areas of control, within which they would attempt to suppress all competing power centers. To the average citizen the end result would be much the same whether such hegemonies call themselves states or not.

The British East India Company is the perfect historical example of what the feudal libertarians advocate: a corporation that rules by force, with its own army, with no goal but the enrichment of its owners.

The idea that markets will take care of concentrations of capital within the hands of a few or a few corporations has never really made much sense.

This obsession with "concentrations of capital" is silly Marxist twaddle. Concentration of capital confers no power to tyrannize others, no power to do anything but offer them access to opportunities to use the capital, opportunities they would not otherwise have had.

The landowner, by contrast, has the power to STOP others from accessing and utilizing opportunities they WOULD otherwise have had. He has the power to offer everyone else a choice between being his slave and starving to death.

See the difference? Marx couldn't.

The capital owner can't take anything from anyone else, the landowner can. And does.

So the real cause of the problems is PRIVILEGE, especially that of landowning. It is PRIVILEGE that LEADS TO concentration of capital, because privilege enables those who have it to take everything from others while contributing nothing in return.

In the abstract, perhaps--if we lived in a perfect market and such conditions were possible. However, economies don't develop in the abstract. They develop out of history--so how liberalizing markets is going to weaken the rich and powerful has never made much sense to me.

Liberalizing markets can never help, as long as landowner privilege remains intact. The landowners will just take everything, and contribute nothing.

This seems to be what Chomsky is getting at, a point which is neglected by right wing libertarians.

Chomsky doesn't understand the central role of landowning either.

[anticlimacus]

This obsession with "concentrations of capital" is silly Marxist twaddle. Concentration of capital confers no power to tyrannize others, no power to do anything but offer them access to opportunities to use the capital, opportunities they would not otherwise have had.

The landowner, by contrast, has the power to STOP others from accessing and utilizing opportunities they WOULD otherwise have had. He has the power to offer everyone else a choice between being his slave and starving to death.

What landowner are you referring to? Why are you assuming that both capital concentration and landownership are mutually exclusive?

[Zamuel]

My what big teeth you have taxizen.

Commercial enterprises are the very epitome of civility

Your concept is just bait around the social watering hole people frequent in their never ending quest for survival. At heart, commercial enterprise isn't civilized, it's predatory. It chews people up, spits them out, and asks "Next?" Whenever possible it cannibalizes itself to remove competition for prey. Civilization is a semi-organized defense against it.

Zam

The Business of Business is Business - Anonymous

[Nunt]

The nation state is primarily geographic. The largest states manage a direct control over large geographic areas, limited by logistics or geographic features. The US, besides its official boundaries, manages a large extra-territorial jurisdiction over many nations of Europe and Southeast Asia; these nations are officially sovereign, but have ceded much of their economic independence. My prediction, following on the previous posts, would be that nations not yet controlled in this fashion will eventually be absorbed into larger spheres of influence. Once you have half a dozen such empires of relatively equal size and strength, the situation becomes relatively more stable. Smaller nations may be chipped away at the margins (Ukraine) but massive changes become too costly.

Note that within these spheres the drive toward total hegemony becomes overwhelming. The loss of civil freedoms, even over the past 15 years, has been remarkable and shows no signs of abating. My thesis is that, given free reign, corporations or other private entities would develop similar geographic areas of control, within which they would attempt to suppress all competing power centers. To the average citizen the end result would be much the same whether such hegemonies call themselves states or not.

I guess that's possible. But there is a difference on how nationstates gain control and how corporations would gain control. Each nationstate is from the start a geographical monopoly and this geography is strictly outlined. The nationstate claims jurisdiction over all the land. But a corporation certainly does not start out this way. Even the very large corporations only claim very tiny portions of land. And several big corporation operate in the same geographic area. Imo this is a disadvantage for corporations that want to become too big. Corporations can be large, but the size and power is dispersed over a large geographic area. In each region they'll have to share that power with a lot of other corporations. You got your coco cola company, your walmart, your electricity provider, your general motors company all operating next to each other sharing the power with hundreds of other corporations. It would be very difficult for coca cola to gain a monopoly because if it tries to be like a government, all other firms will stop it.

[Rich]

The Libertarians and Commies are both wrong! Take Black slavery. Africans didn't need a state to capture slaves. Pre state societies were perfectly capable of engaging in slavery. Although slavery like just about any entrepreneurial activity works more efficiently with a State. To engage in the trans Atlantic slave trade required some capital, ships weren't cheap, but you only needed one ship so huge concentrations of Capital were not necessary.

Please note: Many people now consider the Trans Atlantic slave trade to have been immoral. I know, know, its difficult to keep up with these ever changing moral fashions. ( What's the cool attitude towards homosexuality these days? Is it a disgusting immoral pervasion likely to lead the Sodomite to eternal damnation, or is it a beautiful life style choice worthy of sanctification by the peoples elected representative or their supreme court justices? I can never remember. )

Immoral it may have been, but because only maybe 12% of slaves died on the crossing, it is utterly insignificant trivia when compared to the Holocaust. A minor blemish on ever perfecting liberalism as opposed to the personification of evil.

[SolarCross]

Your concept is just bait around the social watering hole people frequent in their never ending quest for survival. At heart, commercial enterprise isn't civilized, it's predatory. It chews people up, spits them out, and asks "Next?" Whenever possible it cannibalizes itself to remove competition for prey. Civilization is a semi-organized defense against it.

Zam

The Business of Business is Business - Anonymous

So who are the prey? Customers? lol.

Mr Shopkeeper - hi would you like to buy a 1/42 scale gundam kit? It's really cool!
Mr Customer - wow that is cool, but I'm broke. So I guess not.
Mr Shopkeeper - oh *downcast* that's too bad, come back when you got some dough?
Mr Customer - yeah or maybe I'll see if amazon has it cheaper.
Mr Shopkeeper - Oh...

ZAM! *dakka dakka* (zam da revolutionary appears in blast of machine gun fire) - uncivilised pig dogs!, I am here to restore civilisation! Now die! *dakkakka* (kills shopkeeper and customer in a hail of civilised gunfire, grabs the 1/42 scale gundam kit stuffs it in his swag bag and races off to restore civilisation in a shopping centre near you.)

Cheap internet weirdos whining about how commercial enterprises are the ultimate evil and work of the devil are basically just trying to psyche themselves up for a career as a ram raider. (hypothesis)

[Rich]

Where the Libertarians are correct, is that if you abolish the State, the big corporations are the least of your worries. Cheap skate Libertarians like Steve jobs and Mark Zuckerborg are not going to be forking out of their own pockets to recreate the Federal government. What the Libertarians don't get is that not having a State is not an option. The Left Libertarians suffered from this same potentially suicidal delusion, which is why the Maknovists and the CNT had to set about building a state while pretending that they weren't. To be precise I should say not having a State is no longer an option. There were pre state societies, but individual liberties were not respected in pre state societies. How could they be it is liberal states and their ancient predecessors such as Republican Rome that created individual liberties. Rome was also the father of Jesus. What was Jesus Christ but a cosmic truly just Roman Emperor.

If 99% of you don't want a state and just 1% of us want a state. You're having a state. Get used to it.

The only choice you have is what type of State. If we abolished the Liberal democratic state all you end up with is the strongest alternative authoritarian authority. In today's Europe that would be a Muslim state. It only takes tiny, tiny minority to enforce a state unless you opposed by a different state or state forming group. This is what happened in Iraq and Syria. The people rejected the State they had, so they ended up with an Islamic State. We hear constantly how only a small minority support the Islamic State. It doesn't matter unless another sizeable group is willing to get behind another state. Look at the Nazi occupations, it only took a tiny, tiny minority of invaders to impose the German State on the occupied nations. Big troop numbers were deployed in Norway, France and Benelux not to hold the locals down but to counter invasions from other states.

[Truth To Power]

This obsession with "concentrations of capital" is silly Marxist twaddle. Concentration of capital confers no power to tyrannize others, no power to do anything but offer them access to opportunities to use the capital, opportunities they would not otherwise have had.

The landowner, by contrast, has the power to STOP others from accessing and utilizing opportunities they WOULD otherwise have had. He has the power to offer everyone else a choice between being his slave and starving to death.

What landowner are you referring to?

All of them. They each own a microscopic (and sometimes not so microscopic) fraction of everyone else's rights to liberty. Add up all the tiny slices of your liberty that they own, and it turns out you're their slave. Without the modern interventionist welfare state to rescue you from enslavement by landowners, you would labor for their profit or die of starvation, and they would take everything you produced above subsistence.

Why are you assuming that both capital concentration and landownership are mutually exclusive?

They aren't mutually exclusive but they are profoundly different, and Marxism gets them backwards, blaming property in capital for the effects of property in land. It consequently advocates the evil and destructive idea of appropriating privately owned capital, a policy that has failed everywhere it has ever been tried.

Capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land. Socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital.