Corporate Tyranny Is Still Tyranny

close up of hand holding text over black background
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

In the wake of the mass corporate purging of Donald Trump (and those associated with him), I couldn’t help but respond to a few posts on Twitter of people glorifying such a purge. I responded to one such tweet with my own tweet, dripping with a little drama:

“Dangerous levels of power. For those cheering it now, beware, the power and method of assessment is arbitrary. You could be next.”

That was it. That was my tweet. It was met with a firestorm of reactions, especially given my meager Twitter following and presence. Some people fully agreed and responded in kind and the rest vehemently disagreed and lobbied their insults/rebuttals.

I was particularly interested by the monolith of responses I received, almost all of them fitting into one of the following two categories (usually laced with insults and less modestly stated):

red blue and yellow textile
  1. It’s the right of a private business to censor who they want to censor. It’s free market capitalism. They have their terms of agreement so they can boot whoever they want.
  2. Well, I’m not trying to instigate insurrection and violence so I don’t have anything to worry about.

I spent the entire first day responding to tweets, all fitting into one of these two categories, but eventually tired of continually providing the same response to the same tweets by new people. Instead, I’ve decided to take to the keyboard, using my blog as the avenue with which to warn about the dangers of corporate tyranny.

One: It’s the right of a private business to censor who they want to censor. It’s free market capitalism. They have their terms of agreement and use so they can boot whoever they want.

First, I never said or insinuated that such banning wasn’t a businesses’ right, but the assumption stood anyway, as if, I can’t be both afraid of the power of private enterprise AND support the freedom of private enterprise at the same time.

Power is power. So, I reiterated this truth. I don’t care in whose hands it resides, it is still corruptible and frightening to me.

Further, in response to this “comeback” about free market capitalism, I find this argument rather curious, especially given the likely political preferences of those making the remark. Why suddenly defend “free market capitalism” when, for many, capitalism is the evil that must be eradicated?

My response to such claims was simple. Yes, it’s their “right”, at the moment, to make their own terms of agreement and enforce those terms of agreement (although, there are some legal aspects of this I need to dig into regarding “platforms” vs. “private organizations”), and I never said it wasn’t. My concern is, and always is, lots of power confined to a few hands.

There’s nothing more terrifying than power in the hands of few arbitrary arbiters. It doesn’t matter if that power is held by private individuals or public individuals. Power is power and is far too easily abused and misused by corrupt and flawed humans.

single green apple in glass bowl

It’s far worse when that power is held by a small number of corruptible humans who are then able to arbitrarily decide how their power will affect the masses. This is nothing new and nothing controversial. As a Constitutionalist, I’m always aware of the flaws inherent in capitalism. Liberty and capitalism allows human nature to run wild. It allows private companies and individuals to cheat, steal, lie and abuse each other in the masses, much like socialism allows the few in government to cheat, steal from and abuse the masses.

There’s no escaping the consequences of human nature. It rears its ugly head in all circumstances. The issue with this mass corporate purging is that power has been highly consolidated into a very few, rich and powerful hands—meaning that the use of such power will have far-reaching and potentially damaging consequences. These companies’ rules and terms of agreement are completely arbitrary (as they would be since they aren’t confined by any Constitution) and therefore, at the drop of a hat, these companies can choose to purge or eliminate whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

It’s one thing for companies to have power and abuse their workers (terrible, even when left to that); but it’s an entirely new thing when these same abusive companies take politics and culture into their own hands as well.

It’s a chilling amount of power that any and everyone should be wary of.

Two: Well, I’m not trying to instigate insurrection and violence so I don’t have anything to worry about.

I then challenged those who said that they weren’t “inciting violence” with their tweets to consider what “inciting violence” even means. What is “inciting violence”? Who defines what it is? I could argue that anyone’s responses to me were inciting violence. Such a definition is completely arbitrary–meaning, these corporations who are able to control almost every aspect of our lives now (consider this, truly), can decide, upon a whim, for some reason or another, to change their definitions of “inciting violence” or any “term of agreement” because it is in their best interest–whatever that interest might be.

What’s to stop credit card companies and banks from deciding to shut off all access to their services because of a political belief?

Or large grocers from refusing to service individuals who hold a certain political or social belief? Should I keep going?

At this point, nothing. And that’s truly horrifying.

I’m humbled to realize that our corporations are, in many ways, more powerful than the U.S. government. This means that the tyranny, socialism, and communism the founders wanted to preserve the U.S. from, may not be ushered in by government but rather by corporations: the monster liberty created. (Of course the irony being that these corporations will eventually be devoured by the even worse monster they ushered in, tyrannical government).

apps blur button close up

Liberty is beautiful, but the consequence of liberty without Jesus, is human nature rearing its ugly head.

The solution for such monsters? I’m not so sure. I champion limited government an Constitutional confines, but I also champion limited power, no matter who holds it. I do know that the Constitution gives room for amendments, and I believe amendments are in order to confine and curb this corporate tyranny. It’s not unconstitutional to do so if the Constitution gives direction and the power to the government to do so. A Constitutional amendment would do just that, and it would be constitutional. That’s the issue, never letting government have arbitrary power, power outside of the Constitution, which is a why Constitutional amendment are so critical. Or we could turn to the states, who technically do hold the power right now to respond.

Otherwise, we’re going to see corporate tyranny reach levels it’s never reached before. The corporate abuse of workers is already staggering, and that doesn’t even account for the corporate control of the political agenda, news agenda and cultural zeitgeist.

Only a few individuals control all of this.

My friends, in what world, in what time, is this ever considered a good thing?

Ask yourselves the following question and present this question to anyone you know who is championing the latest conservative purge.

When in history has immense power, confined to a few hands (no matter if those hands are government hands or just powerful private individual hands), ever turned out well?

Because, everyone, even those who love the latest purge, grow silent when challenged with this reality.

This Liberty Belle

5 thoughts on “Corporate Tyranny Is Still Tyranny”

    1. Bob Manderville

      The imbeciles we have running the country from both parties substantiate your fear on a daily basis.

      “But I fear, that in every assembly, members will obtain influence, by noise not sense. By meanness not greatness. By ignorance not learning. By contracted hearts not large souls. I fear too, that it will be impossible to convince and persuade people to establish wise regulations.”

      John Adams letter to James Warren 22 April 1776

  1. Bob Manderville

    Chris:

    In regard to the second point you are trying to make. Sure you can say that anyone disagreeing with you is inciting violence but you would not only be wrong but sound like the idiotic argument Bill Clinton attempted during his impeachment with his what is the meaning of “IS”. There is nothing arbitrary about the definition “inciting violence”. In it’s present form populism with it’s contempt not just for experts but the whole notion of expertise has degraded into something closer to nihilism. It’s paranoia and unhealthy skepticism of opposing opinion, to preferring alternate facts tailored to their own liking and delusions is indistinguishable from the lefts post modern relativism interpretation of the truth. Ghost writer to Trumps “Art of the Deal” book Tony Schwartz said about Trump “He spent his entire life redefining reality whenever the facts don’t serve the narrative he seeks to create.” Now his minions are following his example.

    Obviously you haven’t spent much time working in the outside world. If they interpret your actions as detrimental to the companies image or creating a hostile environment you are gone in a heartbeat. They have every right to protect their business or products image. You’ll always have your constitutional rights to challenge any wrongful actions but whether it be working for them or having a contract with them you abide by the rules you agreed to. Conservative writer Tom Sowell tried to put it in perspective when he wrote “It isn’t corporations that make laws that we need to fear, it’s government. It’s not corporations that have the power to tax you, it’s government. It isn’t corporations that will attempt to take away your rights, its government.”

    1. C. McMasters Ph.D.

      Valid points Bob, and as I try to emphasize in my article, I’m well aware that these companies have a right to do what they do. I’m merely concerned about so much power being consolidated into the hands of a few powerful men, which really has nothing to do with government or government structures as much as my concern about human nature.

      The First Amendment initially applied only to the federal government and federal government alone. Because of selective incorporation it now applies to all governments (state and local now) but still ONLY applies to government, meaning all private individuals and companies have the right to silence and censor as they will. This reality does not change my concern, however, about the power that these private individuals and corporations have to influence and control the political agenda, culture and essentially to control what is real and true and what is not. It’s a lot of power in a few hands and for all of history, that has never turned out well.

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top