KOL026 | FreeDomain Radio with Stefan Molyneux discussing Corporations and Limited Liability

This avatar is going to make a sort of ignorant guess.

Perhaps in a world of free market pricing mechanisms, any leftover huge corporations would no longer be able to compensate for intra-bureaucracy gear-grinding by reaching out to political connections (“Our R&D center has become an entrenched bureaucracy and isn’t coming up with any more innovations, so please pass a law against innovation — I mean, a law to protect consumers from pig-in-a-poke merchandizing”). Pricing matters, even inside a company’s interconnected departments, so under hypothetical “things have changed overnight” conditions of free markets all existing mega-corporations would implode in the same way that a government implodes when it can’t enact legislative coercion. After the megas had fallen, free market pricing mechanisms would put a limit on the logistics marshaling that any one business could afford (juggling a thousand balls becomes easier for you when a vizier can force the harafish to relieve some of your juggling duties).

The growth and sustenance of mega-corporations is possible because of one thing: regulation. A proverbial useful idiot allows the NWO to trick him into blaming everyone but the State for the effects of regulation (UI: “Private offshore mega-corporation banksters are behind it all!”), but the State has aces up the sleeve should any of its cronies in the rigged market become too uppity (“Emergency nationalization!”). In other words, there is no such thing as a society in which corporations “own” government (as the Alan Chapman avatar suggested: such nonsense is the stuff of movie scripts that the NWO prefers for keeping useful idiots blaming its plunder on everything but the regulations).

Aside: this avatar doesn’t think much of the Long quote (possibly misattributed or taken out of context), for even under complete freedom each business remains an island of central planning in an ocean of markets. Perhaps he was just trying too hard, but that is the very “boo hoo” factor which imposes an important specter of bankruptcy: can a group of individuals cooperate on a plan to keep their current employer afloat when facing innovative market competition? The State, of course, says “Yes, we can,” which is an obvious collectivist con intended to trick useful idiots into admiring the State’s legislative confidence.

A con man doesn’t defraud you by taking away your confidence. A con man defrauds you by tricking you into considering his confidence as a reflection of your own. Whenever the State manages to trick enough people into believing that its “Yes, we can” confidence reflects their own personal-is-the-political confidence, absolutism is about to kick in the door.