Many people ask why it’s okay for Google & similar companies to collect data, but not the NSA or other intelligence agencies. The simple answer is this: these organizations formed through voluntary union are at the behest of the consumer while governments are generally unaccountable in any normal setting, even in a supposed ‘democratic’ system (which I would argue it is ‘democracy’ that makes them less accountable), while having untold powers to murder millions upon millions of people without even having to lift a finger.
That should be all I need to justify this blog post, as well, but I know people reading this will want more information.
So let’s take a look at government. How can one opt-out of a government’s rules? By renouncing citizenship & moving elsewhere, that’s it. For most people, this is hardly realistic and only amounts to at best, jumping from one frying pan into another, which doesn’t solve anything either. Not to mention, if ‘democracy’ is supposed to be as others say, then it’s counterintuitive to the democratic system, even a democratic-electoral republic.
Someone’s going to ask, “so wait, what about Somalia? If you don’t like government so much, and you believe it truly evil…” Let’s do look at it. Somalia doesn’t even work against the anarchists’ arguments when you actually look at it based on context. What is going on in Somalia is the result of government interference, not the absence thereof; whether it’s the United States, Russia, or some other country, the simple fact is several governments have kept it destabilized through funding local militant groups. But there is another side to it as well: for what is going on in Somalia, it was far worse when it was governed by a dictatorship.
However, I’d like to look at China. Seriously, look at the pattern it has displayed. They’re anything but perfect, and it’s certainly a long shot to say they’re even remotely better than the U.S. at this point; however, while there has been an economical pattern going on worldwide unarguably moving towards more control, the Chinese (though arguably) have been slowly moving in the opposite direction for the past few decades (it is something I must say Richard Nixon deserves credit for), that is towards more economical freedom as it’s even willing to experiment with the free market, and as a result of these moves it has become the economic superpower that not even the United States has ever been capable of all due to its own attempts of centralization & control beyond the roaring-’20s.
But I know some are thinking, “but we can effect change in a democratic system!”
When exactly did a ‘democratic’ system change government? Oft the case, it is through the rarely challenged logic of majority rules, that things stay the same. Look at Europe, and look at America. Canada as well. The only thing that has changed has been the ever-increasing increments of laws being added to the book, while the individual continues to be persecuted and corporations are given more control that they otherwise would not have if not for the government.
In fact, because you can never truly know whether you’re alone or not, it’s nigh impossible beyond election day in the best-case scenario to expect the government to listen. I say beyond election day in the best-case scenario, because realistically even on election day even when you vote for ‘change’, like with Obama, the only change you get is that you’ll be left with change in your pockets that you can use less and less every year.
As I said, I would argue that democracy is even more likely used to get people into accepting more laws as people prefer thinking they’re part of the majority as opposed to a minority, and so for them if it’s believed the majority prefers one thing they may go that route regardless of it being economical for them or not. Hence the inherent problem with democratic government, the only accountability that exists is an illusion or an afterthought.
So now, let’s look at a corporation. How can one opt-out of a corporation’s rules? It is very simple, to not use their products or services, and use your money elsewhere. You’re probably thinking, how is that anymore realistic? Corporations are like trees, they do come one day, and they can be gone the next. It’s proven that with even just a few people refusing to do business with a corporation, unlike when a lot of people may vote against something or someone, that they are able to effect some change within the company, even more so when these people are employees or special members of some sort.
Like with those claiming that not bailing out the banks would’ve made the economic crash even worse, well yes, it would’ve made it worse in the short-term. In the long-term, however, as I had argued in a previous blog post, the fact is it would’ve changed how people do business and as would have been proven if the market were let alone to itself, economic change is always long-term as opposed to just being a short-term action and can in fact start with just one person.
People could & would have learned from their history, but because we instead bailed out these big banks, it simply is not going to happen. The only ‘change’ at this point will be, again, increasing the amount of laws on the books that regulate voluntary transactions, that as oft the case the bigger corporations will be able to not only get away with but will be able to use against their smaller competitive counterparts, small business.
Furthermore, corporations can universally be sued even in the most primitive private court all day long while where there is government, there can be no case. If a corporation violates their terms of service, they can be taken to court or be easily boycotted.
That is why corporations are, whether they’re more/less immoral than government, better in the long-term. Don’t take this, however, as an endorsement of corporations either. It does take two to tango, and it was the banks that oft cause economic crashes. They were wrong, but in a free market it’s simply less likely that they could get away with it, or at all, more so when there are competing currencies.