Why do libertarians only support regulation of government?

[Gahaldu]

I have a question for libertarians regarding a scenario. It takes place in a country with an extremely (economically) libertarian nation in which there is a massive chasm between the poor working class and the rich. I know whether or not an extreme free-market nation would devolve into that has been debated at length, but please assume that it would for this scenario. The wealthy top brass at a company take money out of the salaries of their already poorly-paid workers and give it to themselves as a bonus. Considering that libertarians oppose nearly any government regulation in the economy, many would probably defend the business' right to do this.

Here's another scenario. What if a government raised taxes during a recession in order to pay for luxuries for their own politicians? There would surely be outrage, considering the libertarian opposition to wasteful spending and high taxes. But why? What, exactly, is the difference between the two scenarios? In my opinion, both are essentially the same events, simply being carried out by different parties. So, libertarians, would you oppose any regulation to prevent the first scenario from happening, but support stopping the second? Why?

[Bluth Corporation]

Quite simply, the difference is that the government operates by using its instruments of coercion to compel people to deal with it whether they want to or not, while one is always free to choose whether or not he wishes to deal with a private entity.

[Gahaldu]

Quite simply, the difference is that the government operates by using its instruments of coercion to compel people to deal with it whether they want to or not, while one is always free to choose whether or not he wishes to deal with a private entity.

But what if the companies in the nation in which the scenario takes place are all more-or-less like the one I mentioned? What if the workers have no choice but to continue working on due to the poverty they already face?

[Genivar]

In government you can choose you above you, in a company they choose you. You can vote people out of government office, you can't do that with a CEO. If a president does something bad he might lose his job, (Bill Clinton got impeached for a fucking BJ),
If a CEO does something theres a small investigation, maybe a hearing, and then a slap on the wrist and the one responsible gets transferred somewhere else. (BP)
Government IS regulated, there called ELECTIONS!
So do I trust the Government completely? No.
Do I trust a politician more then a CEO? HELL YES!

[Consaria]

Someone else doesn't like the big company, so they start a new, better one. All the workers want to go there, so employment is easily filled. It grows until it is a competitor to the bigger company. The bigger company has to change their ways to suit their workers. This results in higher wages.

[Servantium]

I have a question for libertarians regarding a scenario. It takes place in a country with an extremely (economically) libertarian nation in which there is a massive chasm between the poor working class and the rich. I know whether or not an extreme free-market nation would devolve into that has been debated at length, but please assume that it would for this scenario. The wealthy top brass at a company take money out of the salaries of their already poorly-paid workers and give it to themselves as a bonus. Considering that libertarians oppose nearly any government regulation in the economy, many would probably defend the business' right to do this.

Okay. I disagree with your assessment of how the situation would look, but that's not the point of the thread.

Here's another scenario. What if a government raised taxes during a recession in order to pay for luxuries for their own politicians? There would surely be outrage, considering the libertarian opposition to wasteful spending and high taxes. But why? What, exactly, is the difference between the two scenarios?

One is a private individual/group deciding what to do with their money that they obtained without the use of force or coercion and the other is theft.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Workers could easily picket or strike, and if the company DIDN'T raise their wages/stop garnishing what the workers get, it would be hard to find scabs.

Unless there was some company-funded border (which debatably could be called "government") the workers could "vote with their feet" and leave the country/business for another (especially if they risked starving, etc.)

But, on to the question:
The difference is private companies should be allowed to make their own decisions. Whereas, as the government is necessarily supposed to be "public" it must be held accountable for anything and everything it does, by everyone since it is supposed to benefit everyone. Most significantly, a gov't must be held accountable for waste. A private company "wasting" money (or whatever term you'd like to use) is not as heinous as a public entity "wasting" money.

[Greed and Death]

I have a question for libertarians regarding a scenario. It takes place in a country with an extremely (economically) libertarian nation in which there is a massive chasm between the poor working class and the rich. I know whether or not an extreme free-market nation would devolve into that has been debated at length, but please assume that it would for this scenario. The wealthy top brass at a company take money out of the salaries of their already poorly-paid workers and give it to themselves as a bonus. Considering that libertarians oppose nearly any government regulation in the economy, many would probably defend the business' right to do this.

Here's another scenario. What if a government raised taxes during a recession in order to pay for luxuries for their own politicians? There would surely be outrage, considering the libertarian opposition to wasteful spending and high taxes. But why? What, exactly, is the difference between the two scenarios? In my opinion, both are essentially the same events, simply being carried out by different parties. So, libertarians, would you oppose any regulation to prevent the first scenario from happening, but support stopping the second? Why?

Have you quit a job before ? How easy or hard is that on a scale of 1-10 ? Like a 3.
Have you renounced citizenship and lived as a stateless human being before ? How hard is that on a 1-10 scale? like over 9,000 ?

[Bluth Corporation]

In government you can choose you above you, in a company they choose you. You can vote people out of government office, you can't do that with a CEO. If a president does something bad he might lose his job, (Bill Clinton got impeached for a fucking BJ),
If a CEO does something theres a small investigation, maybe a hearing, and then a slap on the wrist and the one responsible gets transferred somewhere else. (BP)
Government IS regulated, there called ELECTIONS!
So do I trust the Government completely? No.
Do I trust a politician more then a CEO? HELL YES!

See, the reason I trust companies more than politicians is because it doesn't matter whether or not I can get rid of a corporate executive I don't like, since I can easily just choose not to deal with him. However, the politician has access to the coercive state apparatus to compel me to deal with him whether I want to or not so long as he does remain in office; furthermore, even if I personally might want a politician out does not necessarily mean that enough other people will agree with me to vote him out. But with a corporate executive, again that doesn't matter since I can, completely unilaterally, choose not to deal with him or his company any more.

[Seleucas]

I have a question for libertarians regarding a scenario. It takes place in a country with an extremely (economically) libertarian nation in which there is a massive chasm between the poor working class and the rich. I know whether or not an extreme free-market nation would devolve into that has been debated at length, but please assume that it would for this scenario. The wealthy top brass at a company take money out of the salaries of their already poorly-paid workers and give it to themselves as a bonus. Considering that libertarians oppose nearly any government regulation in the economy, many would probably defend the business' right to do this.

No, this is not permissible. However, that does not mean the government should be the one to stop it, some other third party should do so.

Here's another scenario. What if a government raised taxes during a recession in order to pay for luxuries for their own politicians? There would surely be outrage, considering the libertarian opposition to wasteful spending and high taxes. But why? What, exactly, is the difference between the two scenarios? In my opinion, both are essentially the same events, simply being carried out by different parties. So, libertarians, would you oppose any regulation to prevent the first scenario from happening, but support stopping the second? Why?

The problem is that they took any taxes in the first place; what they use it for is irrelevant.

[Mike the Progressive]

Workers could easily picket or strike, and if the company DIDN'T raise their wages/stop garnishing what the workers get, it would be hard to find scabs.

Exactly. The entire case of laissez faire is to 'let it be.' That is let the situation handle itself. A dispute between labor and corporations is not a government one, but one between labor and corporations. Through whatever legal means, they should handle it.

[Meryuma]

-snip-

The thing is that your hyper-corporate economy wouldn't emerge in a free market. Hypothetically, I'd support collective bargaining of various sorts by the workers, and urge people to start their own businesses separate from the big ones dominating their lives. I still would oppose government regulations, however, seeing as government regulation is a gun to one's head, just like every other state-imposed measure.

If a president does something bad he might lose his job, (Bill Clinton got impeached for a fucking BJ),

Something bad like theft or murder? Oh, wait, we have taxation and war...

[OuroborosCobra]

Workers could easily picket or strike

Citizens can do the same against a government.

[Unidox]

Quite simply, the difference is that the government operates by using its instruments of coercion to compel people to deal with it whether they want to or not, while one is always free to choose whether or not he wishes to deal with a private entity.

Unless private entity is a monopoly and/or has coerced government into it's favor.

[Servantium]

Quite simply, the difference is that the government operates by using its instruments of coercion to compel people to deal with it whether they want to or not, while one is always free to choose whether or not he wishes to deal with a private entity.

Unless private entity is a monopoly and/or has coerced government into it's favor.

If a libertarian had his or her way neither would able to happen.

[Mike the Progressive]

If a president does something bad he might lose his job, (Bill Clinton got impeached for a fucking BJ)

No, he got impeached for lying to a grand jury. It's called perjury.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Workers could easily picket or strike

Citizens can do the same against a government.

But a government has the ability to defame the citizens who do so and make them into social and economic pariahs (ala blacklisting, the breaking up of sit-ins during the Civil rights movement, etc) whereas private companies (so long as they don't become a government stylized entity) do not have such a all-encompassing scope over lives.

[Colonia Americae]

I have a question for libertarians regarding a scenario. It takes place in a country with an extremely (economically) libertarian nation in which there is a massive chasm between the poor working class and the rich. I know whether or not an extreme free-market nation would devolve into that has been debated at length, but please assume that it would for this scenario. The wealthy top brass at a company take money out of the salaries of their already poorly-paid workers and give it to themselves as a bonus. Considering that libertarians oppose nearly any government regulation in the economy, many would probably defend the business' right to do this.

Here's another scenario. What if a government raised taxes during a recession in order to pay for luxuries for their own politicians? There would surely be outrage, considering the libertarian opposition to wasteful spending and high taxes. But why? What, exactly, is the difference between the two scenarios? In my opinion, both are essentially the same events, simply being carried out by different parties. So, libertarians, would you oppose any regulation to prevent the first scenario from happening, but support stopping the second? Why?

It should also be noted that big corrupt business cannot exist without big corrupt government. I was talking to an individual who used to write for car magazines not too long ago. He got talking about how many great car concepts there are outside of the major auto companies, but they were unable to expand and build a client base because of very stringent regulations that were impossible follow unless the company had deep pockets. All too often regulation that is for 'the people' ends up being just a barrier of entry for new businesses that could possibly do a better job than the existing ones. Ultimately, in the ideal libertarian scenario, government is limited and unable to provide its coercive force to compel individuals and companies to do things, meaning that the company would be unable to use its money and influence to use the government to build barriers to business.

[Meryuma]

In my ideal libertarian scenario, there would be no state. "Limited government" is usually a cop-out for people who fear anarchy.

[Servantium]

In my ideal libertarian scenario, there would be no state. "Limited government" is usually a cop-out for people who fear anarchy.

We don't fear it per se, we just realize that the only way it could possibly work is if everybody was an an-cap. Not everyone is an an-cap.

EDIT: It's the same reason that communism can't work. The beauty of capitalism is that people can get together in communities and be communists and it's still capitalism because it's all voluntary.

[Georgism]

EDIT: It's the same reason that communism can't work. The beauty of capitalism is that people can get together in communities and be communists and it's still capitalism because it's all voluntary.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit. It doesn't have to be voluntary.

[Turmoilandia]

The first scenario would make no sense, even in a libertarian society where businesses would be able to do that. It is basic economics that you cannot underpay your employees in a free market economy (especially an unregulated one where anybody can start a competing business) and get away with it. The result of businesses conspiring to cut the pay of their employees to give themselves undeserved bonuses would be that competing businesses would hire away their employees at a higher salary. Since big businesses largely benefit from government regulations that create barriers to entry for potential competitors (and put competitors out of business), it is probable that there would be far fewer large companies in the absence of these regulations. Of course, the classic example of government regulatory agencies created clearly to serve the interests of certain business interests would be the Fed, which was originally created at a meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia between the Rockefellers, Morgans, and the Congressional sponsor Senator Nelson Aldrich. His daughter married Rockefeller's son and his grandson Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller would be a vice president. Other regulatory bodies were likewise created by business interests to serve their goals. Of course, the regulators are controlled by business interests. For example, there is a revolving door between companies like Goldman Sachs or Monsanto and the agencies that regulate those companies. Even anti-trust was created by big business for monopolistic purposes. It is forgotten that the "great trustbuster" Teddy Roosevelt ran against Taft in 1912 because Taft was trying to "bust" J.P. Morgan's trusts (this was done intentionally to split the Republican vote and secure the election for Woodrow Wilson, who also supported the Morgan interests).

The 2nd scenario where the government raises taxes to purchase some luxuries for politicians is one that could actually happen in the real world. The libertarians would oppose the 2nd scenario because they oppose all taxation and government spending on principle.

[The Parkus Empire]

Because private companies never, ever would use coercion.

[Sibirsky]

In government you can choose you above you, in a company they choose you. You can vote people out of government office, you can't do that with a CEO. If a president does something bad he might lose his job, (Bill Clinton got impeached for a fucking BJ),
If a CEO does something theres a small investigation, maybe a hearing, and then a slap on the wrist and the one responsible gets transferred somewhere else. (BP)
Government IS regulated, there called ELECTIONS!
So do I trust the Government completely? No.
Do I trust a politician more then a CEO? HELL YES!

You can choose where to work. The politicians you choose are nearly identical.

The CEO is upfront about his intentions (to make money for the corporation), the politician lies to get you to vote for him. CEOs are generally more trustworthy.

[Sibirsky]

Workers could easily picket or strike

Citizens can do the same against a government.

Except that when employees strike the business loses money. When they picket against the government, the government doesn't give a shit.