Capitalism Means Policing Big Companies · Elliot Temple

Elliot Temple Philosopher Home Essays Debate Policy Philosophy Consulting Digital Products Other Websites: Critical Fallibilism Fallible Ideas Curiosity Blog Capitalism Means Policing Big Companies I’ve changed my mind about corporations. I used to have a negative view of government and a favorable view of industry. Now, I think basically every large corporation is awful – similarly bad to the government. Big companies commit ongoing fraud and other rights violations. They violate laws that would exist even in a fully free market. Therefore, if we had a more capitalist society, that wouldn’t mean companies are left alone more. Capitalism involves protecting rights, enforcing contracts, policing aggression, etc. Our government does a lot of things it shouldn’t, but it also fails to do a lot of things it should. Part of a capitalist society would be a better, more effective government. I’ve recognized many flaws in specific companies and incidents. But I only recently extrapolated the pattern that all the big companies are bad. Therefore, our government’s failure to police fraud well is a huge deviation from capitalism which a free market society would fix. I haven’t changed my political principles, like peace, freedom and limited government. Nor have I changed my mind about Austrian economics. But I now hold some beliefs that I haven’t seen anyone else advocate who has similar pro-capitalist principles. This article is an update on my political philosophy ideas for September 2022. I’ll discuss my principles first. Then I’ll criticize corporations from a pro-capitalist perspective. I’ll focus more on conceptual issues than on the specifics of flaws in current companies, though I’ll give some examples and link to more. I’ll also discuss investors who fund frauds, disagreements with libertarians (e.g. I think capitalism is a limited framework that isn’t meant to address all problems, not a solution for everything), and creative adversaries who don’t initiate force. I also bring up the root cause of the problem (irrational people). My main theme is that capitalist or libertarian type principles imply a government that actually does enough policing of companies to stop fraud and other initiations of force, not a smaller government that leaves companies alone more. Principles My principles are similar to classical liberalism . Other terms that apply to me include Objectivist, pro-capitalist and minarchist. I favor Austrian economics. People would generally categorize me as “libertarian”, though I don’t fit in well with libertarians. I also don’t fit in with the Democrats/“progressives” or Republicans/“conservatives”. I’m an atheist who was never religious; I grew up in a left-wing area of the U.S.; and I’ve never changed my mind about some social values I grew up with like opposing racism and sexism or defending abortion. I favor peace, freedom and individualism , including free markets and limited government. I could conceivably favor having no government in a very different world but I tend to disagree with current anarchists. I used to identify as an anarcho-capitalist and make anarchist arguments, but I stopped years ago. Let’s just start with minarchy, see how it goes, and consider next steps later. Minarchy means a minimal, limited government which basically only does defense against initiation of force: police, military, courts, laws and foreign policy. It would ideally be funded in a voluntary way but it’d still be a big improvement with coercive taxation. A minarchy should also have democratic elections or some reasonable system, not be e.g. a dictatorship. Ayn Rand is my favorite author and Ludwig von Mises my favorite economist. Some other political and economic authors I like are George Reisman, Henry Hazlitt, William Godwin and Edmund Burke. Classical liberals believe in the harmony of people’s interests . There are no inherent conflicts of interest between people. Adversarial interactions are unnecessary. Win/win solutions are possible for all problems (win/wins are outcomes with mutual benefit and no losers). People can get along without compromising their values and with no aggressors violating other people’s rights. Every person would be individually better off that way. I consider it disturbing how cruel and unsafe our prisons are, and I think prison should only be used for defensive purposes, not for punishment or revenge. That’s an example of social disharmony and adversarial relationships, rather than win/win cooperation. Another example is Marxist class warfare, which I regard as a tribalist way to seek win/lose outcomes (when classes war with each other, then some must lose for others to win). Minarchy The primary reason to prefer a minimal government is that the government is authorized to use much more violence than anyone else. The government runs the military and sends out armed men to enforce its laws. But violence is dangerous...