Fighting the Power

“yes, we agree on the need to dismantle the state, but evidently you do not see corporations as coercive institutions (which is strange considering that Adam Smith himself said that the modern state exists primarily to suppress the outrage of the populace at having been injured by the rich & their corporations).”

There is nothing inherently coercive about corporations, just as there is nothing inherently coercive about a non-limited liability company, or a non-profit company. They become coercive by aligning with or engaging in coercive acts. If a corporation starts threatening people with physical harm or utilizes the state for protectionism and cost externalization, then it becomes coercive (unfortunately every single one of us is coercive to some degree… i.e. if you’ve ever used a government-funded road). Many corporations become coercive (just as many other types of companies, unions, and special-interest groups do). Many corporations also manage to serve their customers with quality, affordable goods and services without resorting to state protectionism and cost externalization.
It is imperative for us to understand that corporate crimes are symptoms. Treating symptoms is a worthy goal to pursue, but the state is the disease.  If corporations were to be gotten rid of, other special-interest bodies would simply take over the same influence and produce similar problems.

“if you decry concentrations of power, why not concentrations of wealth (wealth which is then used to purchase access to power)?”

It’s a bit more complicated than that, I think, Devon. Concentrations of wealth and concentrations of power go hand in hand. If we look at the places in the world where wealth is the most concentrated (meaning very few people have much wealth and most people have very little), we find that the state is much more centralized and executes a much greater degree of oversight.  In a non-coercive economy, personal wealth advancement is generally the result of producing wealth for others or, rather, assisting in the production of wealth in a highly-valued way.  In a non-coercive economy, wealth advancement is the great incentive for individuals to innovate and develop skills to produce more wealth for others. Granted, wealth advancement leads to a certain kind of power, but it is a power that is wielded generally for the benefit of others because it is kept in check by consumer sovereignty. So… to answer your question… it’s not so much that I do not decry concentrations of wealth… it’s just that I do not decry opportunity for wealth advancement.

“you say: ‘In the end, corporations serve their customers. When customer wants and needs change, corporations either adapt or go out of business.’ This is patently untrue. Did the people in Alabama poisoned by Monsanto 'want' PCB's in their water?”

No, the people in Alabama did not want PCB’s in their water, but they were also not Monsanto’s customers. Had customers demanded Monsanto to alter its business practices or lose their business, you’d better believe Monsanto would alter its business practices. Now, of course, it would be a terrible world if people were ONLY accountable to their customers (what’s to avert murder for hire?) Those who commit harm to others ought to compensate for the damages. In our society, the institution deemed responsible for these dispute resolutions are the state-run courts. Due to this lack of a market in arbitration, the courts (like any monopoly) are less fair, less efficient, and less accountable.
By the way, Monsanto did not escape that situation without punishment. Victims were awarded an initial settlement of $700 million on top of an estimated $3 billion in awards over the long term, and Monsanto’s share prices dropped severely following the incident.

“Did the American people (or the Vietnamese) ask them to create Agent Orange?”

Well, according to statists, the American people asked them to create Agent Orange through their representatives in the Federal government, but my answer is “no.”  Agent Orange is an example of fascism and the pillaging of the public purse, which I do not support.

“And yet, even though nobody wants Monsanto, they get bigger and bigger and more powerful. Doubtless these are examples of bad capitalism in your eyes…”

Indeed. Monsanto is an incredibly sleazy corporation with too many government ties to count. It is a major recipient of direct government funds, utilizes biased legislation for more favorable court rulings, and benefits from artificial market barriers of various kinds, including some of the most absurd patent awards on seed genomes that have ever been enacted. Monsanto gets away with suing farmers (and even landing them in jail) because its patented seeds have cross-pollinated into the crops of farmers who do not even contract with Monsanto.  These farmers should be suing Monsanto for polluting their crops, not the other way around.

“but what is the corrective? Boycotting Monsanto doesn't work because they have a monopoly. Also, boycotting and dollar-voting can only be practiced by people with money.”

I never said boycotting was sufficient, but that doesn’t mean it won’t help. “Dollar-voting” occurs every time a person buys anything. Yes, it can only be practiced by people with money. Most people have and spend money, and, hence, most people “dollar-vote.” Spreading awareness about the positives and negatives of specific companies’ business practices will help encourage people to make more informed consumer decisions. We have already witnessed this on a large scale with the ‘Green Revolution,’ during which a growing base of environmentally-conscious consumers has resulted in shifting business practices in a more environmentally-friendly direction.  

“Poor people (most people) have no choice but to purchase what they can afford.”

Everyone, whether rich or poor, is restricted to goods and services that he/she can afford. I don’t know what you consider to be “poor,” but in the US, at least, I would not say that “most people” are poor. Even those in the lowest quintile have an obscene number of choices available to them. While they may be financially pressed to purchase cheaper goods and services, their options are still abundant.

“That is why, even though most people who could afford it would buy organic produce, there will always be a market for bad food - most people can't afford the good stuff. This is of course due to government subsidies.”

You are spot on that a lot of “bad food” prevalence in the market is the result of subsidies. New Zealand recently got rid of a lot of its subsidies and government oversight and has experienced significant growth of smaller farms and a reinvigorated healthy food market. Remember, “the workingman’s diet” hasn’t always been unhealthy. Setting aside debates about the nutritional/environmental costs and benefits of organic and conventional food, as agricultural technology currently stands, the global population could simply not be fed on an all-organic diet. Organic food is more expensive for a reason, and that is because it typically requires more resources to produce. All else remaining equal, converting all “conventional methods” of food production to organic farming would not make organic food any cheaper, but getting rid of agricultural subsidies would certainly level the playing field.

“But if governments are hand maidens of the corporate rich, don't you have to get rid of the corporations as well as the gov't?”

I suppose that depends on what you mean by “get rid of corporations.” To me, that’s kind of like asking, “don’t you have to get rid of people as well as the ability to get away with committing crimes?” in reference to crime prevention. The logic here implies that because people commit crime, getting rid of people is the solution to getting rid of crime. By the same token, you seem to be suggesting that because corporations co-opt state coercion, thereby doing harm, the solution is to get rid of corporations. Just as a person has incentive to commit a crime for his/her benefit if he/she is unlikely to suffer the consequences of it, a corporation has incentive to neglect the impact it has on others if it is unlikely to suffer the consequences of it. But we must remember that, just as a person is not inherently a criminal, a corporation is not inherently an unaccountable cost-externalizing entity. Certainly there is reason to cheer when companies like Enron fall. We should definitely try to prevent/get rid of corporations’ government-granted privileges and protectionism over individual citizens and market competitors. We ought to hold corporations that do harm to others accountable for their actions, but simply casting riddance to corporations is not the solution.

“corporations are in the business of creating 'needs' and 'wants' where formerly they did not exist.”

This is a common misrepresentation and drastic oversimplification of the marketing world. Corporations are no more responsible for “creating wants” than the person to first introduce you to the taste of strawberries was responsible for “creating your want” of strawberries. Corporations try to persuade people to purchase their goods and services, but, ultimately, a person must first adopt the ideas and values on which such a purchase could be deemed beneficial. Corporations tend to try and satisfy those “wants” that people either already have, or that they assume people WOULD have if aware that a particular product were available; hence, corporations spend billions annually on market research. Once a product has been produced, corporations will advertise it in order to (a) tell people that it is available and what it’s supposed to do, and (b) to convince people that it will satisfy their wants at an agreeable price.

“as long as the profit-motive rules, (whether you call it voluntarism or capitalism), the planet dies. this is because profit seekers see everything as potential for 'production'. a forest is 'unproductive' until it is killed and made into 'products' and profits... etc. there is no way around it.”

The planet doesn’t die because of the profit-motive. The planet “dies” when people value goods and services that “kill” the planet more than they value the “life” of the planet. That’s not anything that’s going to change because the profit-motive disappears. If the general population suddenly valued spending time in nature parks, guess where profits would flow from?... and, thus, capital would flow to?  Logging companies would soon find themselves losing forest to nature parks. If anything, it is private property rights that have prevented against environmental damage. If my factory is polluting a lake owned by a fresh-water fishery, I’m almost definitely going to get sued by the fishery. That cost is going to make it less profitable for me to pollute the lake, and therefore unlikely to pollute the lake. If I DO pollute the lake, I am going to have to pay to clean it up.

“the only way is to act out of universal-interest, planet-interest, and recognize that the moment an economic or political or religious line is drawn between a self and its interconnectivity with the earth and other people, life is out of balance, and the world is in danger.”

There is no such thing as “universal-interest” or “planet-interest.” The planet is not interested in anything. People are interested. Individuals have interests.  One person may have an interest in maintaining the ‘natural environment’ and, thus, preventing a tree from being cut down. Another person may have an interest in clearing land for farming and, thus, cutting down a tree. Both might claim that his/her desired action is out of “universal-interest.” Both would be wrong. Countless solutions may be sought for this conflict, but one thing is for sure… neither person has the right to impose his/her interest on the other by threat of violence.