What I’m Reading, September 22, 2014

The atheist libertarian lie: Ayn Rand, income inequality and the fantasy of the “free market”, CJ Werleman, Salon, September 14, 2014

Robert Reich says that one of the most deceptive ideas embraced by the Ayn Rand-inspired libertarian movement is that the free market is natural, and exists outside and beyond government. In other words, the “free market” is a constructed supernatural myth.

There is much to cover here, but a jumping-off point is the fact that corporations are a government construct, and that fact alone refutes any case for economic libertarianism. Corporations, which are designed to protect shareholders insofar as mitigating risk beyond the amount of their investment, are created and maintained only via government action. “Statutes, passed by the government, allow for the creation of corporations, and anyone wishing to form one must fill out the necessary government paperwork and utilize the apparatus of the state in numerous ways. Thus, the corporate entity is by definition a government-created obstruction to the free marketplace, so the entire concept should be appalling to libertarians,” says David Niose, an atheist and legal director of the American Humanist Association.

***

Reich says rules that define the playing field of today’s capitalism don’t exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don’t “intrude” on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren’t “free” of rules; the rules define them. “In reality, the ‘free market’ is a bunch of rules about 1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); 2) on what terms (equal access to the Internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections?); 3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?); 4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); 5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on.”

***

That awkward pause that inevitably follows asking a libertarian how it is that unrestricted corporate power, particularly for Big Oil, helps solve our existential crisis, climate change, is always enjoyable. “Corporations will harm you, or even kill you, if it is profitable to do so and they can get away with it … recall the infamous case of the Ford Pinto, where in the 1970s the automaker did a cost-benefit analysis and decided not to remedy a defective gas tank design because doing so would be more expensive than simply allowing the inevitable deaths and injuries to occur and then paying the anticipated settlements,” warns Niose.

Spanking is a euphemism. For assault. Chocolate, Pomp, and Circumstance, Medium, September 17, 2014 Continue reading

Share

A Murder of C Corps

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAWednesday morning hypothetical:

  1. Corporations are “persons,” according to the U.S. Supreme Court and various political and media figures.
  2. Corporations (and other artificial business entities) have certain rights under the Constitution, a matter upon which the major disagreement is the extent and breadth of said protections.
  3. Corporations operating in a market economy seek advantages and dominant positions over competitors, with the aim of maximizing profits.
  4. Corporations sometimes embark on campaigns to improve their own products, services, or value to customer; lower prices; or gain other advantages in local, regional, national, and transnational markets. The effect of such campaigns is, at times, the bankruptcy or closure of rival businesses.
  5. In some cases described in #4, the rival business ceases to exist.
  6. Businesses may intend to drive a competitor out of business, but at a minimum, they embark on business campaigns with the knowledge that closure of a rival business is likely to result.
  7. In jurisdictions that define murder as intentionally causing the death of another person, is a business in this situation guilty of murder? In jurisdictions that define manslaughter as knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causing the death of another person, would that statute apply?

Just a thought I had. Texas defines criminal homicide (murder and manslaughter) as involving the death of an “individual,” and defines “individual” as a “human being,” Tex. Pen. Code §§ 19.01(a), 1.07(a)(26), so corporations here are probably safe. I can’t speak for other states, though. Discuss.

Photo credit: jlpeterson from morguefile.com

Share