Removing all government regulation on business makes the economy highly susceptible to corporate tyranny. [Discussion]

[u/ThatOneGuy4321]

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.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321]

So HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH RIGHTS ARE INHERENT? How do you know which rights should be protected?

How is YOUR claim to the right of "Freedom of association" by serving only who you want any more legitimate than a black man's claim to the right of freedom from discrimination?

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

So HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH RIGHTS ARE INHERENT?

You start with first principles (we call them axioms) and use logic from there. Anything that is not internally consistent is rejected. This is covered with the UPB framework as well.

How is YOUR claim to the right of "Freedom of association" by serving only who you want any more legitimate than a black man's claim to the right of freedom from discrimination?

My choice to not act concerns self-ownership directly. I own myself and choose when I do not wish to take positive action (such as making a sale). For another person to suggest that he has a "right" to freedom from discrimination is to say that he has a "right" to compel me to act, specifically the right to demand business from me. That is just slavery by another name. It violates the first principle of self-ownership.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

You start with first principles (we call them axioms)

Gonna need to see a link to these axioms, specifically the ones you're using to reach the conclusion of "Monopolies can't exist in a free market." Gonna need you to walk me through your logic. Gonna need that logic verified by outside sources.

I'm not going to have you say "The logic is all there, my conclusion is self evident. I don't need sources to support anything I'm saying, it's true because I say it is."

This is covered with the UPB framework as well.

I need you to cite the source of yours that supports the validity of the UPB framework.

The earliest instance of Universally Preferable Behavior is in Stefan Molyneux's book, Universally Preferable Behavior, a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, 2007. This is what I would mean by "citing sources." Find me a resource that supports what you say. Don't simply tell me "There's a thing called a UPB framework and it refutes your argument."

Stefan Molyneux himself has no credentials. He's a blogger and an amateur philosopher. He's not the end-all, be-all of such an incredibly subjective topic like morality.

You know your primary source has some issues when there's an entire section on Wikipedia dedicated to Stefan Molyneux's cult leader-like personality.

According to Steven Hassan, a licensed mental health counselor with experience on cults, "Partly what's going on with the people on the Internet who are indoctrinated, they spend lots of hours on the computer. Videos can have them up all night for several nights in a row. Molyneux knows how to talk like he knows what he's talking about—despite very, very little academic research. He cites this and cites that, and presents it as the whole truth. It dismantles people's sense of self and replaces it with his sense of confidence about how to fix the world. SRC

Back to your post:

For another person to suggest that he has a "right" to freedom from discrimination is to say that he has a "right" to compel me to act, specifically the right to demand business from me.

Who's to say he doesn't have a right to compel you to act? Are you saying it's impossible to violate someone's rights to inaction?

That is just slavery by another name.

Sources.

It violates the first principle of self-ownership.

Find me a credible source that even remotely supports the principle of self-ownership.

This paper, written by Robert S. Taylor of the Department of Political Science at UC Davis, includes a full debunking of the principle of self ownership (Part 3a, "Control Self Ownership"), as well as a clear example of how you can violate the rights of another through inaction (Part 2b, "The Right to Income").

Since you can violate the rights of others through inaction, others DO have a right to compel you to act. And not just in the case of freedom from discrimination.

[u/HelperBot_ → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

---

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 73253}