Corporations

Democratic Debate Opens by Declaring Big Tech and Corporations as the Enemy

Bill de Blasio: "We are supposed to break up big corporations when they're not serving our democracy."

|

The big target, as the first Democratic debate opened this evening, was not President Donald Trump, but America's biggest businesses. Candidate after candidate used their first question to blame big business and major corporations like Amazon for any economic problems faced by Americans.

Elizabeth Warren kicked off the debate by claiming that, despite good news about the economy, "it's doing great for a thinner and thinner number of people at the top." This is not actually true. The number of people moving up from the middle class into the upper class is actually increasing. Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) said he was "concerned about corporate consolidation."

But it was New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to show precisely why he's the least popular candidate to make it into the debates. He is very clear and succinct that he simply does not believe in concepts like private property or individual rights. He bluntly said, "We are supposed to break up big corporations when they're not serving our democracy." He added that they're supposed to call for massive taxes and that this deliberate redistribution of money and property from the rich to the masses is the "heart and soul" of what the Democratic Party should be standing for.

Candidates like Warren talk about breaking up big corporations and using antitrust actions to target wealthy businesses, but de Blasio's on a whole different level. This shouldn't be a surprise. De Blasio has a lengthy history of having absolutely no respect for private property, bluntly saying that he thinks the government should decide what gets built and threatening to seize buildings of landlords in New York if their buildings fall into disrepair (never mind that New York City's only public housing authority has a terrible reputation).

It's almost as though de Blasio's role in this race is to just say the harshest, most unacceptable position against private property ownership to make candidates like Warren seem more reasonable. Later in the debate as attention shifted to immigration, de Blasio said that the American people needed to learn that it wasn't immigrants who were responsible for their economic woes (true!) but big corporations (not true!).

Make no mistake here: The Democrats decided to open this debate not by casting Trump as the villain, but America's own businesses.

Advertisement

NEXT: Fifth Circuit Adds New Wrinkle to Texas ACA Case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Later in the debate as attention shifted to immigration, de Blasio said that the American people needed to learn that it wasn’t immigrants who were responsible for their economic woes (true!)”

    Good for de Blasio. As long as Democrats continue their movement toward the Koch / Reason open borders position, I’m willing to overlook their occasional silly “corporations are bad” rhetoric.

    #ImmigrationAboveAll
    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders

    1. What economic woes?
      The economy is booming.
      Rents are sky high.
      Every airplane is 100 percent full.
      Unemployment is almost extinct.
      Burger King is paying 17 bucks an hour here.

      1. You’re dealing with an idiot or a troll, and whoever it is, seems to enjoy composing lies.
        It makes me wonder who would do so on a regular basis, but there is no reason to engage the idiot/troll.

        1. Not a fan, huh?

          1. Tired of the one-trick-pony predictability.

        2. OBL is not a troll. He just thinks he’s being sarcastic without realizing that he’s not really very good at it.

    2. Hmmm… Either a Russian troll or a Democrat troll. Not that much difference in the two anyways.

  2. “We are supposed to break up big corporations when they’re not serving our democracy.”

    So there you have it. We’ve known all along, but this is tacit evidence that if anyone in the US is a legit fascist, it’s people like de Blasio.

    A corporation’s job is not to “serve our democracy.” Companies in service of the state is the very definition of fascism.

    1. There is only one God and it is the State. Serve or die.

    2. Yes the same DeBlasio that once said the city should own all the property. Hardcore socialist, arrogance beyond compare.

  3. Let’s face it, if the Democrats fail to regain the White House, it will be the fault of the following:

    Corporations
    Wall Street
    Russia
    Party Failure to Understand the American Voter
    Women Voting Against Self-Interest
    The Electoral College
    Campaign Failure to Understand the American Voter
    Russia

    1. “if the Democrats fail to regain the White House”

      Let me stop you right there. Not gonna happen. I guarantee a Democratic victory in 2020.

    2. Or B, running ANOTHER candidate who can’t beat Trump, because they are out of touch with everyday Americans.

      1. they are out of touch with everyday Americans

        BS: they’re elbow-deep into everyday Americans’ pockets.

      2. They were soooooo pissed at Ryan for pointing that out

  4. Big tech is the enemy?
    I guess they don’t have to worry about winning California in the general election.
    But they might want to stop and think where a lot of their campaign contributions come from.

    1. I don’t know who any of these clowns think they’re fooling. They’ll be hoovering up donations from every single one of these companies’ employees and execs.

      Anyone who thinks they’re going to bite those hands is a retard.

    2. Big Tech knows the script.
      They want power, and the Ds are the clear choice to give them more power.
      They know that talk is talk and will be used to justify regulations, which Big Tech will write, to cement their position and crush any competitors that might arise

    3. CE
      June.26.2019 at 10:18 pm
      “Big tech is the enemy?
      I guess they don’t have to worry about winning California in the general election.
      But they might want to stop and think where a lot of their campaign contributions come from.”

      Big tech learned from the MS lawsuit: Co-opt them to keep competition at bay; buy ’em off with stockholders’ money

      1. The current NJ-5 rep in congress worked for MS after interning at the Clinton White House. hmmmm

        1. There was a revolving door between Google and the Obama white House with hundreds of employees getting jobs back and forth

          1. “Nothing to see here, move along”

            -Reason

  5. OMG Tulsi Gabbard is so awful! Her sister used her Twitter to complain about a supposed pro-Warren bias.

    It’s clear who MSNBC wants to be president: Elizabeth Warren. They’re giving her more time than all the other candidates combined. They aren’t giving any time to Tulsi at all. -V (Tulsi’s sister)

    So not only does Gabbard resemble Drumpf in terms of coziness with Russia, her campaign is also Drumpf-like in its criticism of the media.

    #LibertariansAgainstGabbard
    #GabbardRussia

    1. It was interesting. They gave her a pulpit early, let her hold serve, then buried her so she couldn’t f it up

  6. And Beto (not his real name) spoke in Spanish! About nothing. But wow Beto! Despite the fact that every limousine liberal was scratching their head and nobody who can speak Spanish was even watching you clinched it Dead Cow brother.

    1. Not watching- please please please tell me that Warren spoke in Cherokee.

      1. No, but apparently they’re running for President of Mexico since they’re all breaking out in broken Spanish.

        1. these guys are pandering to every fringe group under the sun. It’s like watching corporations pandering to pride month, turned to 11 and minus even the pretense of sincerity.

          1. Castro: “Tranny abortions!”

      2. “me be big chief, take white man wampum, make mighty rain dance and fire water!”

  7. “We are supposed to break up big corporations when they’re not serving our democracy.”

    All you need to do is read the comments in this morning’s Reason Roundup to find a couple of regulars here also endorsing this idea.

    It’s kinda funny, too, since the idea that large corporations can pose just as big of a threat to liberty as big government is normally associated with the left-libertarian side of the spectrum (or 2-D plane). Such as Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, etc. Who, if they were alive today, would be labeled as “commies” here.

    1. Well, the idea of suing them is a valid one, but you’d just end up whining like a bitch about excessive jury awards and claiming that Google isn’t responsible for the behavior of its employees after they lost.

      1. Jeff probably has no issue with Facebook asking the Irish government if it should ban ads the government was against last year. He probably also applauds Google’s cozy relationship with china and its subversive use of technology to push social credit scores and monitoring. They are private companies after all.

        1. “Not willing to prohibit an act” is not equivalent to “affirmatively supporting an act”.

          I can disagree with Google entering into contracts with the Chinese government without demanding that the government forbid them from signing those contracts.

          Just like I can disagree with your obvious decision to rot your brain by doing nothing but hanging out in a right-wing echo chamber all day every day, without demanding that the government prohibit you from doing so.

          1. racebaiterjeff: “Muh Libertarianism means it’s a-ok to enslave POCs as long as I do it offshore. Muh Free Market!”

            If you aid and abet Emperor Xi in enslaving the Chinese people, how are you *not* initiating force against them?

      2. Well, you certainly did end up trying to stuff words into my mouth.

        There is nothing stopping you from suing Google for a breach of contract. Go right ahead. I’m not opposed for anyone suing anyone for any perceived wrong that they think they have suffered.
        But what is the “contract” associated with Google search results? Suppose they really are manipulating search results so as to favor a particular point of view. What contractual term have they broken by doing so? What would you sue them for? And would you even have standing to sue?

        The IMO proper libertarian response is to simply stop doing business with them. But just read the comments at the morning Reason Roundup, and prior. Quite a few of them advocate for direct government action against Google because, in their view, Google has become effectively the owners of the public square and therefore must be brought to heel under the boot of government regulation.

        And if you look at some of the left-libertarians and individual anarchists of the past, they take a similarly dim view of corporate power more broadly. I find it ironic that some of the most self-proclaimed right-wingers here are parroting essentially left-libertarian anti-corporate views.

        1. Well, you certainly did end up trying to stuff words into my mouth.

          That was literally your argument about Oberlin. Don’t even try to pretend like your some kind of objective party here.

          1. No it wasn’t. That is what you imagined my argument was about Oberlin. You’re projecting because you don’t even bother reading my argument and instead just imagine whatever it is you want to imagine.

            I never claimed that Oberlin didn’t bear *some* responsibility for what its employees did that were libelous. I merely questioned whether the relatively small number of actions taken by Oberlin employees that could be considered to be directly libelous amounted to a $44 million judgment.

            1. No it wasn’t. That is what you imagined my argument was about Oberlin.

              Dude, stop lying.

          2. And do you actually have anything intelligent to say at all about how the anti-corporatist critique from the right side of the spectrum sounds a lot like the left-libertarian argument against corporate power from years ago? Anything?

            Or do you just want to play gotcha games?

            1. Most people complaining are concerned about the revolving door between big tech and government workers (especially obama admins). People who claim to be libertarian see no problem with it, despite the fact that it is very clear that people are being persecuted by the corporations for wrongthink, sponsored by the progressive agenda through billions in government surveillance contracts. And you’ll ignore it because as of right now google isn’t helping violent leftists target you. Don’t worry though, eventually you’ll make the list. Too bad everyone with a backbone will be gone well before you, so you’ll be on your own.

              Fight for freedom from progressive cronyism and persecution now or fight on your own later.

            2. And do you actually have anything intelligent to say at all about how the anti-corporatist critique from the right side of the spectrum sounds a lot like the left-libertarian argument against corporate power from years ago? Anything?

              For someone who bitches about “team,” you seem quite eager to make sure people stay in their little ideological boxes.

              There’s nothing at all contradictory about being right-wing and not sucking corporate cock.

        2. Google, and big tech generally, enriches itself partially through a crony capitalist exemption to publishing liability law. The proper *libertarian* response is to end the crony capitalist law enriching BigTech.

          racebaiterjeff is a Reason True Believer. Open Borders, Crony Capitalism, HateAmericaFirst, and totally intellectually dishonest.

          They should give him a recurring column. He can take over the immigration and trade articles when Shikha and Boehm go on vacation.

          1. “Google, and big tech generally, enriches itself partially through a crony capitalist exemption to publishing liability law. The proper *libertarian* response is to end the crony capitalist law enriching BigTech.”

            Why the fuck is it so hard for these leftist morons to see this? The only reason I can think of is because they think their enemies will disappear and something something utopia

    2. chemjeff radical individualist
      June.26.2019 at 10:55 pm
      “…since the idea that large corporations can pose just as big of a threat to liberty as big government…”
      Jeff continues to show that he is a raging ignoramus!
      Keep it up Jeff! Your rep needs polishing, and you are the ignoramus to do so!

  8. ‘ He is very clear and succinct that he simply does not believe in concepts like private property or individual rights. He bluntly said, “We are supposed to break up big corporations when they’re not serving our democracy.” ‘

    Corporations are creatures of the State which enable those with capital to earn profit while shielded from liability for the activities that brings that profit.

    If Reason wants to argue that corporate privilege is necessary For The Greater Good, let them do so, but they don’t get to argue that corporate privilege is about *individual* rights.

    1. Those with capital are commonly called shareholders. They are individuals who have voluntarily put their money behind a company for profit.

      Shareholders don’t bear liability because they don’t have a say in day-to-day decisions of the company. If that shareholder is on the board of directors or an executive of the company, you can be sure he can be held liable for his actions.

      1. #LibertariansForCronyCapitalism

        1. Of course nothing I’ve stated is even remotely cronyist, and you know it. But you’ve built your flawed argument and you’ll fight to the death for it.

  9. Democrats always seem ignore the faults of Big Labor and over-emphasize the faults of Big Business regardless of the fact that individuals are at the core of both conglomerate entities. (They refuse to extend any trust to one type of conglomerate entity as the over-extend trust to the other type.)

  10. “Big corporations are screwing everyone over and everything is their fault!”

    But also,

    “We need more immigrants because they run fortune 500 corporations!”

    1. I noticed that slip up too

  11. It’s almost as though de Blasio’s role in this race is to just say the harshest, most unacceptable position against private property ownership to make candidates like Warren seem more reasonable.

    So, it’s like if some crazy mother fuck’n Libertarian kicks off his congressional campaign by calling the incombent weak as water and declaring his plans to secede from the USA.

  12. “We are supposed to break up big corporations when they’re not serving our democracy.”

    Not a surprise attitude from a socialist. Corporations have no obligation to ‘serve’ anyone other than their stockholders.

    However, big tech’s harassing and blacklisting of users based upon political views changes them from a platform to a publisher, which means they are no longer shielded by the CDA section 230.

  13. DeBlasio used his famous “there’s all kinds of money out there, its in the wrong hands”. #greennewgulagsfortheonepercent. Only corporations? and will they exempt professional sports onepercenters, musicians, artists and actors? Canada is probably foaming at the mouth for all the capital and investment that will flight into the great white north if one of these idiots actually wins–afterwards Canada builds a wall.

  14. […] the deservedly loathed mayor posited that the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party should include such notions as “there’s plenty of money […]

  15. […] the deservedly loathed mayor posited that the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party should include such notions as “there’s plenty of money […]

  16. […] the deservedly loathed mayor posited that the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party should include such notions as “there’s plenty of money in this […]

  17. […] best economy we’ve had in decades. We have to give all illegal immigrants free healthcare. Profitable companies are the […]

Please to post comments