Anybody who uses the "A" symbol, definitely does not support our Constitutional Republican form of GOVERNMENT!
Why not? Couldn't you use the "A" symbol and support anarchism, yet settle for a constitutional republic as a reasonable approximation?
Anarcho-capitalism is where ALL government intervention in the private sector is completely eliminated.
Actually, since ACs theorize the "right" to unlimited private ownership of the earth -- even at the expense of everyone else's rights -- then they must rely on government intervention. Or they would have to use force, making themselves the government. It's back to "might makes right." No way to run a civilization.
As for giant corporations: if it weren't for land & resource monopoly and the artificial scarcity rents it creates (as well as creating a position from which to buy even more privileges politically), they wouldn't exist. See
The Menace of Privilege, p. 404-8
McDonald's Corp. is basically a huge landlord. The corporation makes its money by acquiring valuable sites and leasing them to franchisees, who do the work. (They also lease or purchase facilities, supplies from the corporation, but that is all well and good -- that's capitalism. And intellectual property, but that's another topic. )
Starbucks Corp. being newer, and very based in busy urban districts, probably has to rent from established landlords more. I heard a guy on C-SPAN say once, in a conversation about the supposed great wealth of Starbucks, that rather than owner of Starbucks, he'd like to own those busy Manhattan corner spots where Starbucks rents. Probably, Starbucks buys these buildings whenever they become available, but I'd guess that doesn't happen often.
Walmart, in addition to being really nasty towards labor, dictating prices to suppliers, etc. is notorious for twisting arms of municpalities for tax breaks. They get a privileged deal on the taxes for their huge store and parking lot. Even without the tax breaks, they'd be already receiving a subsidy from the taxpayers in the middle of town and the inner-ring suburbs who have to
subsidize the sprawl that is Sprawlmart's natural habitat. Taxpayers in older locations pay for prematurely extending infrastructure out into the cornfields to serve Walmart and the financially unsustainable subdivisions that Walmart likes to build near. All govt. intervention.
The bigger Walmart got, the better it could withstand the stifling effect of sales tax, payroll tax, income tax, which smaller competitors could not. This accelerates the demise of competition.
However, we removed all such privileges (stopped taxing productivity, which ends Walmart's comparative advantage wrt absorbing taxes that Mom and Pop can't); started taxing land value held, and stopped cutting any other special breaks for any business, the free market would at last creak into action. I think outsized business like Wal-Mart would prove uncompetitive on many fronts without the tilted playing field they now enjoy. With more jobs, more dollars in our pockets, more growth in town centers rather than the peripheries, and with Mom & Pop and other smaller entities more able to enter the market, Walmart would not look like such a great deal any more.
All "public lands" will be sold to developers, so fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, etc will be considered "Trespassing". All roads will be tolled, and protesting on a formerly public sidewalk, will be now be considered "trespassing".
Good point there. Although I don't feel this is a rationale for federal control of parks (they should all be turned over to the States), there's no guarantee we would have public lands if it weren't for government at some level.
Remember, the US Constitution is an agreement between the GOVERNMENT and the PEOPLE. Anarcho-capitalism is a "backdoor" to skirt around the Constitution because there is no agreement between natural persons (the People) and artificial persons (the corporations). Free speech, bearing arms, right to a jury, etc. will violate "policies" of the "private land" owned by the Corporations.
If we were starting over with a clean slate and a virgin, uninhabited continent and everybody started out absolutely equal, then something like AC
might work (for one generation at least -- until the next generation, and new immigrants, come along and say "Where's OURS?"). But that's not the way this country, or any country, was settled. It was done by persons and entities serving powerful and wealthy interests. Once the best fertile convenient, strategic places were claimed, individuals did not have a fair shot, and still do not. Thus, the need to make everyone a financial shareholder in the land and resources.
The Rockfellers, Carnegies, Harrimans, Fords, and other industrialists got to be the powerful globalist groups they are today because of anarcho-capitalist type of polices of the late 19th century.
The Menace of PrivilegeSee Chap 1 starting at p. 29.
The early 20th century Progressive Movement that Glenn beck demonizes so-much was the "21st Century tea party" of their time. It was grassroots and they fought for better working conditions. After the Progressives broke through to the mainstream, they were CO-OPTED by the industrialists (the same way the TEA Party is today). Now progressivism is equated to eugenics, racism, abortion, and feminism, thanks to the globaist foundations steering the movement.
The original Progressives were anti-monopoly and pro-labor.
Last time I checked, all of the globalist think tanks are headed up by the private sector. Bilderberg, CSIS, CFR, WTO, Trilateral, etc ARE NOT "STATE", they are private. ANSER Institute for Homeland Security was a PRIVATE organization before DHS was publicly announced by Bush in 2002. SPLC that scripts the DHS reports is a PRIVATE organization. Big Pharma are private corporations that pay off the FDA bureaucrats to pass garbage like vioxx and contaminated vaccines. Big Food pays off the FDA to pass crap like aspartame and GMOs. The Treasury Department is composed of all JP Morgan, Citibank and Goldman Sachs crooks which are all "private" corporations.
It's a public-private partnershp, though. All these organizations would have no power without powerful states backing them up, and of course, implementing all their policies.
Allowing corporations to have free reign and "anarchy" is beyond naive. The Rockefellers funded Von Mises for a reason, and that family would thrive under this system and you will be a feudalistic slave working 16 hours a day, which will make just enough money to pay for GMO groceries at the town store.
I think that once we remove the menace of Privilege, we will naturally trend toward the ideal of the anarchists and will be able to self-govern in a bottom-up style. We move this huge weight via the little lever of land value taxation, or earth-based revenue, or whatever you wanna call it -- and simultaenously, eliminating all taxes on productivity. This will help shrink Big Business and Big Govt. down to size. But we could never achieve that by simply disappearing the government and letting the global corporations reign unchecked.
