October 21, 2012

“Libertarians” Are For Big Government


They want government to continue to artificially generate “corporations”, as extensions of itself, and then function exclusively as bagman and thug for these corporations. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen a corporation in the wild, nor have any been found in the fossil record. They don’t exist, other than as typical fabrications of big government. They’re part of government.
The only meaningful definition of “government”: Any concentrated power hierarchy which imposes rule. Especially one alien to the geographical region. What difference could it possibly make whether the nominal form of this hierarchy is “public” or “private”? Public vs. private is a scam which has no meaning in human relations, but is claimed to exist only where concentrated power assaults human beings. This concentrated power and its assault are the only things which actually exist. “Public” and “private” are the same in essence and have the same origin – might makes right. By now the corporate state is one monolith, and it’s idiotic to try to disentangle the government from its corporatist intent and capture, or the corporations from the government which created them and which is the only support of their ability to exist (no big corporation could subsist for a day without massive corporate welfare and government thuggery). If you’re against tyranny, against organized crime, you want to dissolve the monolith itself. If you support these, you continue to pretend it’s not a monolith.
What’s a natural market (to replace the terminally distorted and Orwell-ized term “free market”)? My neighbor and I deal mano a mano, as human beings. If he were to proclaim, “I’m a corporation!”, I’d wonder if he’d been out in the sun too long. I sure wouldn’t know what he was talking about, other than that he wanted to swindle or enslave me.
Vote for humanity! Abolish the corporations! This starts by absolutely rejecting their legitimacy and right to exist, let alone any other so-called “right”.




  1. Pretty much nailed here: every kind of social organization is a polity, and a social organization is any kind of such thing with several people enrolled. So not just the state and its components (municipalities, regions, etc.) and its super-strata (alliances, confederations) are polities, but also corporations, NGOs, churches, political parties, etc.

    However all these can be divided in two kinds: democratic (with near-equal power for each member, at least in essence) and tyranical (with all the power concentrated in one or few members). Corporations are all private tyrannies, while, soviets, mind you, used to be public democracies (hoewever imperfect).

    Also (a bit as side note) capitalists organize themselves via other entities (Employers’ Associations, Chambers of Commerce) into the real single party, much like the Senate was in the Roman Republic and later also in the Empire (even if weakened in the late feudalizing period). It is important to understand how the parliamentary system we usually call democracy is totally or almost under the control of this single Bourgeois Party, via bribes (donations) and active control of administration (lobbying) and propaganda (mass media).

    Comment by Maju — October 21, 2012 @ 5:45 am

    • Those are good elaborations of the point (especially mentioning the NGO-industrial complex). Democrats and Republicans are indeed a single Bourgeois Party. The same phenomenon is more or less true in all other “representative” systems including parliamentary ones. I’ll add that while restoring power to its natural geographic level (regional/local) doesn’t guarantee democracy, alienating it up a centralized hierarchy always renders it tyrannical.

      That’s why council democracy, if its participants can keep it, and strictly responsive and accountable confederation from there, is the only reliably democratic political association.

      Comment by Russ — October 21, 2012 @ 6:33 am

      • My point was more of “a Party to rule all parties”, paraphrasing Tolkien’s fantasy. My notion is that if there is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, and there is one, there should be a party that vertebrates this regime (for which the official parties are just facades, puppets), however this shadow single party is not obvious nor outwardly “political” most of the time and should correspond mostly to Employers’ Associations, Chambers of Commerce and similar organizations but not sure how it works in the USA actually.

        Comment by Maju — October 21, 2012 @ 7:32 pm

      • To whatever extent there actually is any sort of “master council”, I’m not sure exactly where it would be. But I think there’s more of an informal network among the 1% and big corporations, with the policy of oligopoly rackets and central governments (especially and overwhelmingly the US, but also to a lesser extent China and a few others) being the clearest measure of its collective action. (I note in passing that the most powerful central governments seem to be those which are inherently imperial rather than national. For example, there’s really never been any such thing as “the United States” or “China”, the way there is or was a “France”. Of course by now even the likes of German and Italian unification seem procrustean impositions on natural cultural heterogeneity.)

        The main difference between this collective organism and that of any democracy movement is that it’s much smaller in the number of members, and it’s far more clear and disciplined about its goals – power, enclosure, accumulation, domination.

        Comment by Russ — October 22, 2012 @ 1:33 am

      • The “master council” are the TBTF banks. Having both an investment bank and a commercial bank under one umbrella creates the ability to pick winners in the “marketplace,” and so they call the shots. Having so few TBTF institutions means they don’t compete but divvy up the spoils.

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — October 31, 2012 @ 12:11 am

    • [Posting this here rather than as a new comment because this idiotic blog software is yet again malfunctioning or intentionally badly functioning.]

      Accounting 101 for the corporate age.

      The entity is Government. Power is its asset. Democratic accountability and financial risk are among its liabilities. Government’s creation and support for corporations is an organizational shell game. The goal is to transfer the power asset to the “private” corporate entity while leaving all liabilities with the taxpayer-liable “public” entity.

      Comment by Russ — October 21, 2012 @ 11:30 am

  2. I second Maju’s assessment. Well done!

    Comment by eldorado62 — October 21, 2012 @ 11:41 am

  3. I don’t see how large-scale social organization would go away, so the main choice, as Maju says, is between authoritarian or egalitarian forms.

    Right-wing libertarians, like David Nolan, place liberty in opposition to authority, and then conflate that with individualism vs. collectivism. These are two orthogonal metrics and this confusion seems to me a large part of why the “left” and the “right” talk past each other. The fact is that much individual freedom comes out of the commons. The main problem with Nolan’s chart, of course, is the reductionist split between social and economic domains of life.

    Comment by Karl — October 22, 2012 @ 1:06 am

    • That’s right. It’s a fraud to conflate “liberty” with “individualism”, since the latter can never coexist with the former, except for a few individuals who are antisocial but talented survivalists (otherwise humans are social animals), or for a few powerful criminals whose “individual liberty” is built on the expropriation and enslavement of the mass.

      On the contrary, all positive freedom, as well as negative freedom AKA liberty on a broad basis, depend on cooperation.

      As for “authority”, libertarians’ notions of freedom depend upon authoritarian hierarchies to enforce their stolen “freedom” at the expense of everyone else. Which brings me back to the wellspring of the post – contrary to their hype, “libertarians” are actually authoritarians running a scam. Freedom and liberty truly are antithetical to coercive “authority” (meaning concentrated power), including in the economic sphere. What “libertarians” really want to do is dissolve the potentially constructive social aspects of government (but we’d be better off without those as well), but retain and aggrandize the purely destructive economic aspects.

      BTW, just yesterday I drafted a post on what “left vs. right” really means if anything. I’ll post that in the next few days.

      Comment by Russ — October 22, 2012 @ 1:20 am

      • The term “Libertarian” in Europe has always meant Anarchist, i.e. Libertarian Communist. To best understand that you should read Piotr Kropotkin. What they call “Libertarian” in the USA, we call “Liberal”, “Neoliberal” or “Ultra-Liberal” (but what they call “Liberal” in the USA we call “Socialdemocrat”). For us “Liberal” was always a right wing doctrine emphasizing private property and the undue privileges of the bourgeois oligarchy.

        Anyhow, we Communist Libertarians, understand that private property, specially on the land and anything that requires collective work to be made, is unnatural and a crime of social robbery, of corruption. We understand that people are naturally social beings and that nobody lives in isolation, therefore our emphasis is in creating and keeping truly democratic decentralized societies, democracy also and specially applied to the economic aspects in order to impede the many abuses that we suffer now at the hands of those who only want society to be a police state to defend their illegitimate and criminal property deeds.

        For us freedom is: (1) collective freedom (true grassroots democracy at all levels, specially the economic units) and (2) personal freedom (free speech, free thought and free behavior as far as you don’t harm others). Private property is not liberty but tyranny and robbery.

        Kropotkin understood well that there are essentially three types of laws: (1) those that defend life and physical/emotional integrity, (2) those that defend property and (3) those that defend the state (the bourgeois state or the feudal state in his experience). 2 and 3 are obviously tyrannic laws and the issue remains on laws of category 1. He suggested that most violence crimes are related to property (i.e. #2) or politics (i.e. #3), so that suppressing property and state would suppress their motivation altogether. Passional crimes would remain but he argued that no law could impede them because they are irrational.

        Comment by Maju — October 30, 2012 @ 10:14 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: