The Government Expansion Was What Paved the Way for Corporatocracy in America.
Corporatocracy (a short term Corpocracy) is claimed to be an economic, political and judicial system controlled by business corporations or corporate interests. Corpocracy is often seen as a bug of capitalism, but it’s actually a feature of mixed political economies—those with a mix of freedom and government controls. Looking back at the period between the Civil War and the rise of the Progressive movement, the U.S. economy was about 95% free, and the results were astonishing. The nation saw explosive growth, with thousands of innovations brought to market, and a rising standard of living for all. Fortunes were made and lost within a single lifetime, demonstrating true upward mobility. During this time, businesses had little interest in politics because politicians had no power over them. The focus was on products and customers, not on currying favor with the government. As a result, corpocracy didn’t exist. Businesses were free to innovate and compete without interference. However, as Progressive ideology began to take hold, the narrative changed. Progressives argued that the government had a duty to protect workers and consumers, often using government force to do so. For a long time, the public resisted these ideas, but decades of political rhetoric began to erode that resistance, particularly by the 1930s. Politicians first went after businesses crafting a narrative that free markets created monopolies and unfair trade practices. The historic examples we are taught in school are wrong. We were taught that “robber barons” in the railroad industry strangled free trade and hurt the ‘little guy’. The problem with that narrative is that rail tycoons were a result of government edicts, restricting rail traffic west of the Mississippi. In the Eastern US, where free trade in transportation still existed, there were no monopolies and consumers had various choices like ships, ferries and competing rail providers. We also learned that powerful industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller ruthlessly monopolized markets putting consumers at their mercy. Unfortunately, that narrative doesn’t hold up to honest scrutiny. Carnegie worked hard to develop his steel business. His processes generated less waste and stronger steel than his competitors. The businesses that bought steel from him were free to buy from his competitors but didn’t because Carnegie steel was just better. Rockefeller had similar success in the oil industry. His success led to lower prices for oil, low enough that even the poorest could afford lamp oil for their homes. Then politicians started to regulate businesses. They decided to regulate workplace safety, the environment and endless other aspects of business and personal life. The US has reached a point where there are over 400 Federal Agencies issuing regulations, some have the authority to enforce them and some even prosecute offenses outside the Judicial Branch. Under those conditions, businesses began to realize that focusing on politics, not just customers, product and competitors, was necessary to stay in business. An honest assessment of history shows that political power always comes first. Politicians introduce laws that regulate the economy, and businesses, in turn, try to shape those laws to protect their interests. Many people mistake this cause-and-effect relationship, believing that businesses are “taking over” the government, when in reality, it’s the other way around. True capitalism, by definition, limits the power of government to interfere in the economy. Just as there is a separation of church and state, capitalism enforces a separation of economy and state. Under such a system, there would be no central bank and minimal regulation, leading to an economic system free of corpocracy and undue political influence. submitted by /u/True_Ad_98 [link] [comments]
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society
Posts from the /r/Libertarian subreddit which discusses libertarianism. It’s a libertarian sub, about libertarianism. Even if you are not a libertarian you are welcome to participate in good-faith discussion about libertarianism.