posted ago by Miztivin ago by Miztivin +10 / -1

Small buisness should. A small buisness should have the right to turn down a customer because its against their religion or creed.

However, once a buisness becomes international, once it becomes a board and something bigger than itself, it should become a public entity with certain obligations to service constitutional rights, not recive them.

Example:

Facebook claims Floridas new law censors their right to free speech, because Facebook sees itself as having the rights of a person. It doesnt, it shouldnt.

Walmart shouldn't have the right to turn away people who haven't been vaccinated.

Could a mom and pop shop? Sure. Its their right.

Yet some places would starve without access to mega corporate shoping centers. If Walmart, Target, and dollar stores banned together to deny service to a demographic, that would be catestrophic.

Idk. Im uncertain on how the law actually works, its just an observation I felt like sharing.

Comments (13)
sorted by:
3
defiant_liberty 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well, the truth is, that if I as an individual have free speech rights, then me grouping together with other individuals, that doesn't magically change the fact that we have free speech rights. But right now, the corporate world is massively distorted.

First, the tech industry have jumped in bed with the government. They are literally acting as an enforcement branch of the federal government for political quid-pro-quo. So this isn't just about corporations doing as they please with their property. When they do it while effectively acting as an enforcement branch of the government, they are violating peoples rights.

Second, in order to finance the federal government the US central bank has been keeping interest rates extremely abnormally low. But the thing is, those same interest rates have a tendency to create market bubbles. A lot of executives have been making extreme wealth from these low interest rates financing stock buybacks. Many corporations no longer have to provide much value to the market to get extreme wealth from their stocks, so they have lost all sense of market accountability. Zombie companies are able to linger along, by constantly refinancing at low interest rates. In a normal world, they would go under and their capital assets would be freed up to be used for more productive purposes.

It's not a coincidence that social unrest has been slowly but steadily growing, ever since the 2008 bailout. The market is not just about profit, but also a mechanism for clearing out unproductive activity. When you constantly bail it out, and unproductive activities can not be cleared by market means, then they it tends to grow out of control until the entire system becomes unstable and collapses.

4
Miztivin [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

Thanks! This is a good break down. Iv heard of artifically low intrest rates (still dont fully understand it lol) I know why bailouts are bad tho, and this really put it in a way I can understand it better.

Basically the dollar vote of the consumer has almost become irrelevant.

Coke can go woke and even tho sales plummet, they can still hold on and maintain somehow. Thanks to government and banking interference.

What we have is no longer capatalism. I guess its now corporatism.

3
defiant_liberty 3 points ago +3 / -0

Low interest rates are like any other market price. They communicate how to allocate capital. A healthy economy finds a balance that sits between production and consumption, between long term investments and short term investments. If you can buy a nice new TV at 1% then why save 5 years to buy it, but if you can only get one at 25% financing, then most people will say fuck it, I'll just save up a few years and get it. If a company can finance a 20 year long term investment, like Mr Fusion, if the interest rates are near zero, then financing it will be cheap. But if interest rates are 30%, then financing that over two decades years would crush them.

By lowering the interest rates below what a free market would, the fed is basically lying to us all about the capital we have. It would be like if I was a brick supplier, and I promised you 1000 bricks per day for a whole year, for dirt cheap. So then you go off and make all these huge plans, start all these building projects, and so on. But then after supplying you faithfully for a few months, I show up in my brick truck one day with 100 bricks. I ran out. I sent you signals that lied to you about how many I had and how inexpensive they were. So now you're fucked, you started all these huge projects, did all this refinancing, did whatever, and now all the projects you are doing have to come to a screeching halt while you figure out what to do. Or maybe I supply you 1000 bricks, but they are now the size of legos. Watering down the money is probably what the fed is going to do. Either way, you are fucked because I was a fraud and a liar.

3
Miztivin [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thank you for this. I think I get it now. I was actually referencing this in some talks with friends over the weekend, so we all learned something :P

Basically, the feds artifically lowered intrest rates means their loaning out money the economy (our capital) can't really afford. Eventually, they'll have to either print more money to compensate, face a backlash of inflation(?), or both. In the end, that 20 year low intrest loan isnt enough to sustain their projected expenses because its a lie that has repercussions.

The value of that loan will crumble and never hit its inteded target. The value of that money just isn't really there.

3
defiant_liberty 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, the fed has the power to print money, which is a huge power, but they don't have the power to print up real goods and services. They don't have the power to print up houses, steel, wheat, or other things. So one way or another, they are issuing checks that the economy can't cash. They can delay the day of reckoning some, but the more they do, the more it fucks everything up.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, the truth is, that if I as an individual have free speech rights, then me grouping together with other individuals, that doesn't magically change the fact that we have free speech rights.

Correct - you still have free speech rights (on your own property) no matter who you associate with. The entity that you've grouped together under is a legal fiction at best. It doesn't get duplicate rights.

In an ideal AnCap world corporations as we know them, with the problems you describe, wouldn't exist. There would be large companies and technically there could be stock corporations, but people would really need to trust the organizations they are chartered with before they invest. Obviously there wouldn't be any government subsidies or regulations beyond your contract with the company.

2
defiant_liberty 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you loan your friend $1000, and he uses that to buy a gun and shoot somebody, does that make you liable? No, of course not. Even in a pure libertarian society, there is still a lot of liability protection for people who buy shares, bonds, or invest in a company, who would have no reason to believe that the company would violate the freedom and property rights of others.

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

You're right I was simplifying a bit for the example. AnCap courts necessarily have to determine liability (it's a fundamental aspect of replacing State), and would still find legal fictions like "corporate personhood" a useful tool for assigning responsibility.

2
ausglitsch 2 points ago +2 / -0

as long as the government isn't giving them welfare, however large, idgaf how big a corporation becomes

i will say, however, that- the larger you get, the more complex it becomes managing your enterprise; and you really have to weigh the potential costs of survival vs. transformation at all times

2
Miztivin [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

True. Iv heard the only reason large corporations stay afloat IS because the governemnt helps them. Theoretically, if left to its own devices, a corp can only get so big before collapsing in on itself.

I dont exactly understand it, so I can't be certain. But I am certain the government shouldnt be abiding any damn corperation for any reason.

2
based_biker 2 points ago +2 / -0

AnCaps don't believe in the Constitution anyways because it is a form of social contract

1
Miztivin [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh. Ha, well duh. That makes sense.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but I like your core idea of distinguishing between small businesses and corporations. (or large companies) That solves a lot of today's problems.