Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I understand why a corporate entity being the state sounds appealing -- the theory that you at least _can_ go to another company seems really appealing on its face.

But in reality, there is no difference.

What you're missing here is that in a monopoly situation there is no competition. You can't go hire another company. You can tell the monopoly you want to hire another company until you're blue in the face, but they don't care. They know you don't actually have the option, because there is no other company to hire.

You can try to start another company, but in a monopoly situation, the monopoly can always out compete you. They can simply drop prices in your small area of competition below you (or to zero) until you go out of business. Even if people hate the monopoly, they often won't be able to afford your higher prices.

And if you look at history, when companies achieve monopoly power, they do often essentially usurp the power of the state, up to and including coercive force. Look at the history of unionization attempts in the mining industry, particularly in the Appalachians here in the US. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, union attempts were often suppressed with privately hired military force -- or with the state's military hired out as a private military force.

And there's another level, corporate entities as state are worse, in many respects than an inefficient or corrupt democratic state. With a democratic state, it's still, ostensibly, answerable to the people. If you can organize enough of a popular response against it at the polls and in street protests, you can change it. A corporate entity is answerable to its owners and stockholders. It's an oligarchy. When it becomes the state, it becomes the worse kind of dictatorship and your only choice is revolution.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: