"Corperations you cant vote for should be the government"

Having a lot of money is not authority.

>Corporate America exists because of the incestuous relationship it has with government

Corporatism would arise organically, just as kingdoms and empires do. The only reason why they are corporations rather than empires is because the government is already established. In a small government society, who would stop a rogue element from creating something stronger and taking over? And if a small government refused to intervene then who would stop the corporation from creating a monopoly and abusing their workers? The Libertarian utopia relies on the same naive notion communists have that people will spontaneously act right if their preferred model is implemented. The moral of the story is that shitty people with shitty ethics will exploit any system if allowed.

> they got money from mommy and daddy and are afraid to lose it via their own incompetence
> You just say the words you think will allow you to keep daddy's money
Yea and liberals are all rich city college kids who directly live off mommy and daddy's money yet are so fucking blind ass retarded that the policies they advocate would have them inherit a soup line instead of a decent will.

Attached: 1519974508008.jpg (1768x2500, 608.04K)

You're a fucking retard. The very concept and creation of corporations were created by governments. The British East India Company was created by a royal charter from Queen Elizabeth the first.

"The Adventurers convened again a year later, on 31 December, and this time they succeeded; the Queen granted a Royal Charter to "George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses" under the name, Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading with the East Indies.[17][25] For a period of fifteen years, the charter awarded the newly formed company a monopoly on English trade with all countries east of the Cape of Good Hope and west of the Straits of Magellan.[25] Any traders in breach of the charter without a licence from the company were liable to forfeiture of their ships and cargo (half of which went to the Crown and the other half to the company), as well as imprisonment at the "royal pleasure".[26]"

The concept of corporate personhood, which granted corporations legal rights, was established by the Supreme Court case Santa Clara county vs Southern Pacific Railroad Co.

"A headnote issued by the Court Reporter in the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. claimed to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations, without the Court having actually made a decision or issued a written opinion on that point.[2] This was the first time that the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, had recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

absolutely this

Corporations run your life with a gun.
That gun is the government.
Would you prefer the person attempting to run your life have a gun on you? Or not?

Protip: They will either way. But the libertarian world makes them show their colors, which would lead to less people putting up with it.
Prove me wrong

Protip 2: You can't.

>they got money from mommy and daddy
Lefties. Always proving they are just spiteful jealous failures born of generations of family failures before them. The kicker is they pretend at moral high ground.

This perfectly explains libertarianism.

Attached: Lolbert.png (1348x1243, 316.65K)

VOTE WITH YER WALLET DURRRR
*buys or uses a product without researching it because of brand recognition like 99% of people*

Attached: 1576263161950.png (886x540, 342.42K)

>Would you prefer the person attempting to run your life have a gun on you? Or not?
So do we do away with the corporations or the government? Or both? I'm kind of fuzzy on where you're coming from.
And keeping in mind, our government can't seem to put a fucking dime in orbit these days but Musk makes the rockets land back on their pads.

My response to your previous post is more than adequate in response to this regurgitation of misplaced rage as well. Grow up and get to work faggot.

Libertarians wouldn’t make the argument, Mr. Witless. It’s a complaint about the perceived implication of the argument. Some people in this world do seem to think legalizing slavery would reduce authoritarianism - and they’re likely the same people who would oppose the extraordinary regulatory effort it would take to keep slavery from being authoritarian.

Libertarian ideology doesn’t adequately account for intrinsic authority tensions.

Also, this is another accurate reduction of libertarianism.

Attached: Libertarians are Jews in disguise.jpg (500x1120, 122.85K)

You realize this is ironic and makes fun of morons that are too brainlet to actually understand libertarianism though right?
Right?

I lmao every time though.

italian fascism is the right way to go.

We do away with both.
The issue is that it is a war of minds and information.
People see government as legitimate. Therefore, whatever the governments sanctions is okay.
There will never be a reckoning with corporations until the veil is removed.

What I find way more funny about ancaps is that they laugh at communism for being against human nature but their answer to "what if people want to do bad things in society" is a mix of "they won't" and a weird system of MAD

Stop hiding. Just admit you want to fuck children and not pay taxes. Your ideology is revolting and no decent person supports it.

Attached: Libertarians want to fuck children.jpg (828x439, 31.99K)

whats lobbying

>describes the ideology that makes you rich, sets you free and lets you fuck the most desirable

>revolting

nigga u gay

Attached: 5g7H6Kk.jpg (480x640, 49.78K)

This doesn't make any sense at all. Corporations aren't going to exist without subsidies and government gibs. Without crony contracts and an unfair tax code. They didn't ever exist previously without the crutch of the state. If you read economics books from the 1700s you find people laughing at the idea that corporations could ever be powerful, because in those days corporations were meaningless unless they were propped up by the state, such as the East India Company, for example. That's why our founders never addressed corporatism in their civics, because in their time the concept of a corporation organically growing to become something that could compete with smaller businesses was laughable.

Ugh, I can't stand non-libertarians. You guys just make shit up about corporations, you don't understand the problem, usually you don't understand economics, you don't understand your own government. You're just so emotional about it all and history objectively proves your attitudes completely wrong.

True. But supporting something because it's "edgy anti-authorianism" is fucking retarded. And libertarianism should be opposed because it's batshit crazy and just doesnt werk.

Yeah no you tranny, Killary & Co is the ones who diddles with kids. Stop projecting.

You think corporations would be more powerful without IP laws or legislated market control that they have now?

Or black/grey money from intel agencies that’s literally all of “big tech”

You’re a retard

And the other thing is you just say "BUT CORPORATIONS WOULD EXIST ANYWAY!" like a total empty platitude. No evidence. No sound reasoning attached to it. Like it's just something you WANT to be true, for whatever twisted reason. Historically speaking it is provably NOT true.

Commit sudoku, eleven

>he hits me really gently when were together

Attached: at my worst.jpg (1024x580, 61.4K)

fpbp

/thread

This.
Most libertarians just think that government is the only problem and that the invisible hand will take care of everything. They think that consumers will naturally boycott any evil business.
Corporations are powerful because they use their money to get through government and influence what the government enforced. The government is a medium through which the corporations flex their power. Without the government, the corporations would have direct access to that power. They would no longer need to bargain and manipulate government to get things done, they would become the government. Every corrupt or authoritarian thing they want to do would become 10x easier.

Attached: AEFC565A-D83A-49B2-A122-2881105F3638.jpg (810x640, 92.23K)

>Some shitty strawman by some nobody.
Mods should IP ban every shithead that posts social media screencaps.

Attached: twitter.png (784x349, 19.05K)

user I have no clue what point you're trying to make.

>t. TPUSA

Attached: 70A7E60B-6EF2-4BE9-BD52-128FE4901846.png (474x299, 131.29K)

Commies are funny because they've somehow convinced themselves that it's altruism to forcibly steal from other people using the violence of the state.

Attached: 1554439786136.jpg (766x770, 81.86K)

It's not wrong to have power.

This is the Rock Paper Scissors effect. Citizens influence corporations, corporations influence the government, government influences citizens. With government gone, corporations would fill the power vacuum and now have more direct influence over citizens, enabling them to steal away the influence that citizens have over them.

Who’s this kike stalking Infowars?
1/2

Attached: 25697879-95EB-472D-8772-2B3D45C563B6.png (1136x640, 1.37M)

>Labor theory of Value
Fuck off you subversive /leftypol/ kike.

I am not the least bit surprised.

Attached: enymmärrä.jpg (718x467, 81.9K)

2/2
Not loomer only person in CPAC that has a t shirt on standing behind her

Attached: C8556553-F162-446C-9D12-604A34AC24E4.png (1136x640, 1.19M)

Large corporations are actually extremely inefficient. If that weren’t the case and they got more efficient as they got larger we’d all be worker for one big corporation right now.

What causes corporations to get so big are government privileges. Granting monopolies or just making laws that give you an effective monopoly is the problem. The problem is when the government has the power to use force to effect the market it becomes abusive and you see mega corporations form.

came here to post something like this but you said it better than I would have

That’s the most asinine thing I’ve ever read

>without governments they’d have That power directly

No! Without governments they wouldn’t have that power at all, they wouldn’t be able to write regulations that block out competition they wouldn’t be able to subsidize the it poor management or get bailouts they wouldn’t be able to become monopolies

All of that is possible because of government.

Too big to fail wouldn’t exist without a government

The car companies and banks would have gone bankrupt and broken up into smaller firms via court instead of being propped up by funny money you absolute Pleb

well you largely can't vot for most positions in the state, so where is the difference?

>Libertarians want to stop the subsidies, corporate welfare, and state cronyism that makes them exist.
I have great respect for libertarians like this, but from my own anecdotal experience, they seem few and far between. Pretty much all of my friends and family who identify as libertarians only complain about high taxes and welfare and gibs, never paying much attention to corporate socialism even when I try to bring it up. Of course this is just my own life, I could just have friends and family who are retarded.

Ah yes I also cannot differentiate between a GM car and a GM car.

Attached: who's who.jpg (2400x1507, 610.54K)

what about the deutsche hanse?
a consortium of trading towns literaly so powerful they propped up the state a few times.

and yes the towns were ruled by the leading marchant familys head so it wasn't like a state federation

>The powerful should be more powerful
What a 0 iq hot take.

Yeah I remember last time walmart tried to tax my income and ban my semi-auto rifles.

women like being beaten once in a while. makes em super wet

>guize! We need authorities to prevent authoritarianism.

>stops buying from corporation
>corporation goes bankrupt
Imagine being this clueless about economics.

washingtonexaminer.com/walmarts-walton-family-backing-clinton
I also cannot differentiate between a person and a corporation.

>I also cannot differentiate between a GM car and a GM car.
Old GM
>trucks that lasts 200k miles+
>easy and cheap to work on
New GM
>falls apart faster than Ford
>$400 for head light and very hard to work on.

>No! Without governments they wouldn’t have that power at all
Yes they would. Depending on how the government ceases to exist, things would either collapse into anarchy and smaller societies or corporations would smoothly inherit the reigns. In the latter case, they would do everything government did, as long as it benefits them. They’d pay and control the police to enforce their laws, and would pick up taxing people to pay for it, which people would abide by as long as the transfer of power was smooth. With tax dollars and police to enforce their rulings, they would be able to bail themselves out and subsidize themselves. It would resemble our current government, except corporations would be calling the shots directly, without a president or congress etc.

>Yea and liberals are all rich city college kids who directly live off mommy and daddy's money
What a way to be completely wrong.

Lol
>I hate corporations they r too powerful lets give the government 100% complete power so you are reliant on them to do something as simple as taking a shit

Socie logic

Of consumers don’t boycott a legitimately “evil” enterprise then they are acquiescing that the “evil” is subjective on a socially agreed upon level. And yet, if said evil is direct harm to others then the offending endeavor violates NAP and can be subsequently prosecuted.

>because in those days corporations were meaningless unless they were propped up by the state, such as the East India Company
Wanting to live in a state like this seems rather non-libertarian, but as I said in a previous post, I seem to be surrounded by the worst types of libertarians in my personal experience. Could you explain more user about what your ideal state would look like and what it would historically resemble?

Be college student:
>I’m poor
>please pay my loans
>thanks mom and dad for all expense payed vacay to Cancun spring break
Get the fuck outta here faggot

Attached: 7A91540E-74A3-46EF-A064-407E909F649A.gif (809x442, 460.41K)

nice strawman

Libertarians are stupid, but people who lick corporate boots are not libertarians. They’re even worse

I trust competent corporation owners much more to use resources efficiently compared to populist politicians who haven't achieved shit in real life and promise gibs.

>Of consumers don’t boycott a legitimately “evil” enterprise then they are acquiescing that the “evil” is subjective on a socially agreed upon level.
No, they’re just stupid. An example is all the liberals who hate chic-Fil-a but can’t stop eating it. Consumers as a mass cannot fend for themselves against deception from corporations. They need to form an organized system to keep corporations in line, which will inevitably take the form of some sort of government.
>can be prosecuted
How? What authority or organized power would prosecute them?

this.

also pic related.

Attached: 1580913244426.jpg (300x225, 11K)

Yeah.

Attached: idpol.jpg (3084x3195, 3.43M)

>Libertarians are stupid,
That’s DR Ron Paul. Do you have a doctorate degree?

Attached: E1118255-B80B-4A79-B906-A9F1D5A48CEC.jpg (267x189, 9.88K)

>No, they’re just stupid. An example is all the liberals who hate chic-Fil-a but can’t stop eating it.
Literally retarded, nobody dislikes chick fil a, people only say that because they want gbp

I just wanna kill commies honestly.

That's what neoreaction is, not libertarianism you dumb fuck

"Voting matters"

Well........You might not be wrong, but I don't think you're fully right either. What I think you're missing is that the people you talk about are probably straight-up "conservatives" or "republicans" and they feign a belief in "libertarianism" when it SUITS them. This is what I fucking hate the most about the Republican party. They FEIGN libertarianism when it's in their interest. And then they turn around and enact the most sociopathic big government tyranny. They celebrate it. Just totally fucked up shit.
They'll do just like you say, "we need to take the welfare gibs away from those NAGGERS!" and then you say "what about how amazon gets all sorts of government subsidies?" and they'll answer "WELL AMAZON IS A MAJOR JOBS PROVIDER!". I mean, they're completely cucked. Yeah. That's what conservatives are.

IMO, the people you are talking about are probably conservatives. I know people say "no true scotsman", but that is a 100% bullshit saying because people definitely LARP when it's convenient for them in politics. Actual libertarians, completely including the most right-wing ones, in my experience, DO care about ending corporate welfare and creating a system that is at least "fair" in some sense, and totally free of government (usually because they believe government is compulsory and therefore slavery).

But yeah I 100% understand the sort of people you're talking about. Fuck those people. I fucking hate those people. There's a lot of those fucking people on Fox News. Ronald Reagan was one of those people, who talked about "small government" as he massively grew the govts role in business and central planning of the economy (all to benefit the rich, naturally). Pick your major conservative. George W. Lindsey Graham. Mitch McConnel. Sean Hannity. Even Tucker Carlson to a slightly lesser extent (he at least complains about some poor big business practices). Almost all "conservatives" do that when it is convenient and benefits them.

Who has the monopoly on deadly force, the government or Walmart?