You're viewing a single thread.
I'd prefer no tyranny at all, but if I had to choose, I'd pick the tyranny of corporations because, at least, companies don't have a monopoly on violence.
Tyrrany of corporations means that the state uses its monopoly on violence at the behest of the corporations though.
They don't though. Private security, PMCs, and private prisons all operate here.
Hell, even the Pinkertons still quietly exist, and they specifically provide security and investigation services for corporations and are still used to investigate and intimidate union leaders.
Private security, PMCs, and private prisons all operate here.
These are necessarily a problem themselves in existing. They all become problems when they are granted privileges above others because they act as entities of the state.
This boy's never heard of the British East India Company
Or the VOC
British East India Company
That is a state
In that corporations can gain so much power there's no difference between them and a state?
Any entity with a monopoly on violence is a state, or an agent of a state.
Well that's simply absurd.
What is a state then?
Your Amazon Firing Squad subscription is about to expire. Remember to renew it soon.
Or else
Yet
Already.
Just off the top of my head, pepsi had one of the largest navies in the world at one point, and both coca-cola and nestle are known for hiring mercenaries to kill and threaten their own workers (union leaders and or striking workers). I don't doubt that's the very tiny tip of the corporate violence iceberg (beyond the inherent violence in slave or near slave labour).
The Pepsi one was a technicality though wasn't it? Didn't they sell the ships off right after acquiring them, and also didn't have them manned? The coke one is new though (are they owned by nestle? that one wasnt.) Where in the world is that happening at?