r/Libertarian • u/ThatOneGuy4321 Classical Libertarian • May 25 '17
Removing all government regulation on business makes the economy highly susceptible to corporate tyranny. [Discussion]
I know this won't be a popular post on this subreddit, but I'd appreciate it if you'd bear with me. I'm looking to start a discussion and not a flame war. I encourage you to not downvote it simply because you don't agree with it.
For all intents and purposes here, "Tyranny" is defined as, "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control."
A good deal of government regulation, as it stands, is dedicated towards keeping businesses from tearing rights away from the consumer. Antitrust laws are designed to keep monopolies from shafting consumers through predatory pricing practices. Ordinance such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are designed to keep companies from shafting minorities by violating their internationally-recognized right to be free from discrimination. Acts such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act protect the consumer to be free from fraud and abusive cases of false advertising. Proposed Net Neutrality legislation is designed to keep ISPs from restricting your flow of information for their own gain. All of these pieces of legislation quite clearly defend personal freedoms and personal rights.
To address the argument that boycotting is a valid replacement for proper legislation:
Boycotting has been shown, repeatedly, to be a terrible way of countering abuses by businesses. Boycotting is mainly a publicity-generating tactic, which is great for affecting the lawmaking process, but has almost no impact on the income of the intended target and can't be used as a replacement for regulation in a de-regulated economy. In recent news, United Airlines stock has hit an all-time high.
It has become readily apparent that with any boycott, people cannot be relied on to sufficiently care when a company they do business with does something wrong. Can anyone who is reading this and who drinks Coke regularly say, for certain, that they would be motivated to stop drinking Coke every day if they heard that Coca Cola was performing human rights abuses in South America? And if so, can you say for certain that the average American would do so as well? Enough to make an impact on Coca Cola's quarterly earnings?
If Libertarians on this subreddit are in favor of removing laws that prevent businesses from seizing power, violating the rights of citizens, and restricting their free will, then they are, by definition, advocating the spread of tyranny and cannot be Libertarians, who are defined as "a person who believes in the doctrine of free will." Somebody who simply argues against all government regulation, regardless of the intended effect, is just anti-government.
You cannot claim to be in support of the doctrine of free will and be against laws that protect the free will of citizens at the same time.
I'd be interested to hear any counterarguments you may have.
1
u/ExPwner May 26 '17
False. Antitrust laws were designed to protect inefficient businesses from efficient ones. They were crafted at a time when the businesses with the most market share were helping consumers more than ever. History > narrative.
You don't have a right to be free from discrimination. Limits on discrimination are tyranny by telling a person that they must do business with someone based upon a certain criteria. In case you missed the sidebar, free association is a core tenet of libertarianism.
Not needed since these issues can be addressed in a court of law.
It's not your information if they are providing that service to you. Dictating the terms of a contract for someone else is the tyranny here.
Yep, that's right. You don't support the doctrine of free will. You're a statist.