In Response

This post is in response to the concerns of an individual at the University of Florida that believes that private companies are like mini-totalitarian states and that companies facilitate the creation of unconstitutional taxes such as the income tax.

Economics is a very important element of libertarian thought because it is through the market that individuals manifest their desires. The market allows a demand for certain services and goods to exist via money and these demands are then supplied by producers anxious for a profit. Where your logic seems to be flawed is in your approach of the word "control." Control if a definite in a market society (i.e. private property). That said, control is only legitimized if gained voluntarily. When two individuals trade, it benefits both parties as long as the trade is voluntary. If the trade is not voluntary, then it is the job of the government (if you believe in one) to prosecute individuals for breaking both verbal and written contracts.

Private companies gain what material possession they do by trading items for money which they can in turn use to buy goods. Companies do "control" items but it is only because they have allowed other individuals to "control" other items. In essence, the market is the trade of private property for private property.

A company is made up of individuals voluntarily contracted to form a productive union. That is, I, as the capitalist entrepreneur, save up enough capital to hire individuals to build products that consumers want. The capitalists and their workers both voluntarily contract with each other to reach certain goals. This does not fit the mold of a totalitarian society. Such a society does not allow for voluntary transactions but involuntary transactions. In a totalitarian society, you are told what you can specialize, what you can buy, and who you can work for. In a capitalistic market society, you have a pick of working for whomever you want to (if you want to work at all), where you want to shop, what you want to buy, and where you want to live; this is all true as long as these trades are made voluntarily. Therefore, unlike corrupt states, companies hire individuals, they do not obligate them to forced labor. It is essentially the difference between forced and voluntary labor.

The video you link shows what happens when government allows certain companies to "rent-seek" or lobby for the power given to the state by the people. Government grants certain companies power, not vice-versa. In such scenarios, it is the government that is the culprit, not the market in general. If the state did not give such powers to select companies and industries, they would be subject to the same market forces as their competitors and would have to deliver what individuals desire. In essence, if the market was left alone by the government, they would have to actually compete to gain a profit. Companies, therefore, can gain profit in one of two ways: rent-seek by asking for government privileges or compete in the market for profit.

The income tax was put into place by a Congress in order to pay for the interest on the loans of select banking institutions that they decided to give power to. The government is who gave the bankers power, not vice-versa. If the government did not mess with the banking system, the banks would actually be liable to the citizens via the market.

It is the market, not the government, that fulfill the needs of individuals. Once government favors one company over another, then it is the government that is using their power in a manner that will hurt the market and therefore the citizens. The market after all is made up of the entirety of the nation while the government is an elite group of individuals who claim to have the right to extort money from the citizens. Therefore, as long as certain companies are not favored by government, the market will drive them to compete for the hard-earned dollars of individuals and therefore produce in greater amounts while minimizing costs and increasing efficiency.