At what point should government say "your business is too big" ?

At what point should government say "your business is too big" ?

When they stick their nose in politics

they shouldn't, but they also shouldn't bail said companies out for any reason no matter how terrible the consequences might seem

When they have branches in more than one city.

I try not to be ancap but basically the government needs to stay out of it completely so when the big business gets too big we can just shoot them all with our guns

When they reach the point to be able to influence the country's politics

Fpbp

bingo

Never

You're saying a business should never have limits, no matter how powerful they become?

FPBP. When they have enough money to mess around in things other than their field, that's a pretty good sign it's time to stop.

I was just memeing, but it's a bit more complicated than that.
I believe that all human activity ought to be limited by the NAP; however, the implementation of this implies a code of objective and absolute laws. (Can't have people following different laws according to taste, as a conflict could not be resolved objectively.) This implies two components of the state: a constitution (whose founding principles - the rights to life, liberty and property - would remain immutable) and a Supreme Court. Together, these components are an arbitrating agent of last resort. However, a centralized monopoly on the enforcement of this ultimate, absolute law is not implied - thus, almost all 'governmental' activity, the protection of rights, would be carried out by private organizations (corporations). The private rights organizations would reach agreements to enforce the law; only when they reached unresolvable conflicts, would these private organizations go to the Supreme Court. Thus your 'state' could consist of 3 judges and a book; everything else could be done privately; that is, without coercion.
In this society, much physical power is held by the private rights organizations, and none by the state. What stops one from simply declaring itself a dictatorship and taking over? Competition. Attempting to take over and institute tyranny would rally all those who you tried to oppress, against you; they would immediately start supporting other private rights organizations who stand with the constitution and the NAP. Thus it is more profitable to continue acting as an efficient rights protector than to launch a war against your own customers - wars are expensive.

It is worth clarifying what is meant by 'power' in this context. There is no justification for a limit on so-called 'economic power', i.e. wealth. In a free market, all wealth is produced and earned; placing a limit on what one man or group of men can produce and keep is a violation of his right to action and to property. Political power, i.e. the capacity to use force, is a different matter. In an ideal society, the use of force would be eliminated or at the very least confined to an insignificant criminal fringe; however, it is difficult to justify placing a limit on the physical *capacity* to use force - to do so would be the equivalent of convicting someone of a crime before he had committed it. Thus the best option we have is to place all organized force directly in the service of those who wish to be protected, i.e. as private rights-protecting corporations; however, in order to be used justly, force must be confined by an objective code of law, evidence, proof and punishment. This is why the ultimate arbiter - the constitution and Supreme Court - are necessary. They represent the subordination of private force to the idea of an objective code of justice.
The system would be self-correcting. An attempt by the state to become tyrannical by rewriting the constitution would fail due to the state having no power of taxation and no physical force at its command: the people would simply destroy the state and restore the old constitution with new judges. On the other side, an attempt by any private group to overthrow the constitution and seize power, would be defeated by the combined physical strength of the rest of society (including competing private rights organizations) united under the ideological banner and sanction of the state. The system avoids both the central problem of anarchy - the lack of objective rights and justice - and the central problem of statism, the danger of a state which becomes exploitative.

This comic was made by someone ego clearly doesn't understand the link between economics and politics

And into market and/or mass manipulation, I would add.

Amazing post.

When the business stops bribing the government.

never

When they don't have to raise their standards because the consumer has no other viable choice. Also the case if several corporations work together to establish the same effect.

when any business has more gdp than the recognized countries, it's too powerful

also any one corporation including subsidiaries having more than 50% market share is asking for trouble

>nose

>be born with $1,000,000 that only belongs to you because one of your relatives way back decided a piece of land was his and suckered people into paying him to use it
>"""""""earned""""""

The problem is caused by politics sticking its nose in business in the first place.

A corporation is literally created by government. Legal personhood can't happen in the free market.

The government is the reason businesses get as large as they do.

Retards' solution is to get the government even more involved in the market.

Get the government the fuck out of the market and let businesses compete with one another.

Governments create monopolies, they do not prevent them.

so nearly a century ago LOL

How would you defend this society against long term corruption? Say one (((corporation))) started veeery slowly amassing power and wealth, gain control over the media, the court, and put its agents in the ranks of competition to prevent any joint action against themselves?

>decided a piece of land was his
There's your error. In a free market, ruled by an objective code of justice, property must be legitimately acquired. If one discovers a previously uninhabited piece of land, you can indeed declare it your property. Nobody else has a claim to it, as they wouldn't even have known it existed if you hadn't discovered it. You have earned it by virtue of the effort you put into discovering it. It must have cost you something to discover - time, risk, resources - because if there were no such cost involved, then someone else would have discovered it already.
Regarding inheritance: An absolute right to property exists. That right includes the right to transfer that property to anyone else, as a transaction or a gift. The recipient of such a transfer could be one's offspring. Try again.

what game?

If a corporation managed to infiltrate every organization with power and influence the media so as to sway people's beliefs away from life, liberty and property - then it would indeed collapse into tyranny. But there is no society that would be safe from that.
All societies exist on an ideological base. Why did the American revolutionaries rebel against piddling, mild British Empire taxation, while modern day Europeans or Soviet citizens don't lift a finger against their almost total enslavement? The difference was their respective political ideologies, which ultimately depend on their moral philosophies (individualism vs collectivism). A morally individualist society would rapidly throw off a collectivist political system, while a morally collectivist society will erode and eventually destroy even the most well-constructed individualist political system (see the history of the USA). Thus the society I described would have to exist on the basis of the people's conviction in moral individualism, which implies individual rights in politics.
Consider what this means for that society. Every single decision taken by the Supreme Court would be scrutinized and debated as a potentially dangerous action of the state. In exchange for the honor of being one of the 3 men who are the ultimate legal arbiters of a vast country, each judge might be expected to live modestly and earn his own living apart from his court duties. The acceptance of a bribe, if discovered, would blow him sky high - he'd probably be executed for treason. Besides, every legal decision taken by the supreme court would have to have its logical justification on the basis of individual rights. The standard for logical justifications can be set high enough that they are as difficult to fake as a geometrical proof.

As for a corporation clandestinely gaining control of enough physical power to establish a tyranny - it would have to gain enough to defeat the rest of the country singlehandedly. In a society ruled by an objective code of justice, the (((company))) would find it extremely difficult to violate that code without bringing punishment on itself. Suppose it seizes a man's house; he takes them to the private court of his rights protection company. Unfortunately the (((company))) pays off the judge. So the man takes the case to a higher court, and so on, until he's taken the case to the Supreme Court. Now the company has the choice of rebelling against the state, or backing down. And you can bet that the citizens will be watching this affair like a hawk the whole way through; as moral individualists, they are wary of attempts to establish tyranny over them. Unless literally more than 50% of all the men and guns in the land are secretly in its employ, then it will lose as soon as it tries to make a move that violates the constitution, as the rest of the country - which has an interest in maintaining its constitutional rights - will unite against it under the sanction of the state.

>Rhodesian Colonies
Sounds fun

Stellaris with a shitty homemade mod to add meme empires.

It's great to glass entire enemy planets with your fleet of Chick-Fil-A Battleships® because they violated the NAP by trying to colonize a juicy planet which you had homesteaded and was saving for later

Give mod list

None except for added name lists and icons for the meme empires. I'm waiting for Paradox to overhaul combat and tech completely before I play it again, it's an absolute clusterfuck as it is.

Oh, I also use the whites only mod for those volkisch feels

When you use it to influence politics.

>goverment
no, it goes like this, "we the people"

We call it a monopoly.

Adam Smith warned of monopolies constantly, Now we have 6 major corps that control vast monopolies facilitated by a politician class that is paid off by them, but you can't do anything when the FBIcucks/CIAniggers/GCSQueers are looking to arrest people who can deal with the problem.

Multinationals need to be smashed. They're a breeding ground of traitors.