On free market and/or solidarity rhetoric

I do have time to write a short comment on another subject though: business leaders often praise the market, and union leaders praise solidarity. So why is it that Siemens made the EU to ban Chinese light bulbs, and why are Norwegian unions (in general) against immigration of Polish workers?

Because they fear competition. But, to take the business leaders first, how does that fit the praise for the market? Not at all. Many (most) big businesses are bureaucratic institutions, who are in bed with government, and nothing close to a free market business. Also, when it comes to unions, Norwegian unions want to protect their privileges, rather than letting in workers from poorer countries. How can this be solidarity?

Anarchy, institutions and big business

I don't doubt that government is helping big business at the expense of small business. I know many examples of that myself. One example is when IKEA decided to establish themselves in my old hometown, Karlstad. The city of Karlstad sold the ground to IKEA for 1 million SEK (which was way below "market value").

Other Swedish municipalities have been paying wages for big business employees for years when they've established themselves there, as a thanks for "creating jobs" in the area.Does small business get the same treatment?

No.And the result of this discrimination in favor of big business? In Hagfors, Sweden, there was a call center. The company didn't have to pay wages for the employees, the local Arbetsförmedling (government's employment agency of Sweden) did that for them for three years.

Guess what? After three years, the call center was shut down.So there is no question of whether government and big business are in the same boat ("Staten och kapitalet sitter i samma båt", for those of you who understand Swedish and have heard Ebba Grön).

But there is another question: In Anarchy, there will still be institutions, and there would be no (coercive) limits of how big a company can grow, right?So there would still be big business, although they would now have to be more efficient than the competition. Right?

Qui Bono? (latin: Who benefits?)

Who benefits from the state?

A usual defense of the state goes something like this: managed correctly, the state is a good. It protects the poor, the homeless, the sick, the mentally insane, etc, from the rich, the ruthless, the evildoers.

There is a problem with this analysis. First of all, compare this defense with reality. In reality, there are poor, homeless, sick and mentally insane people not taken care of in rich "decent" countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany and the United States. Rich corporations receive protection from governments against cheaper competition. EU, Japan and US subsidies to their farmers is a good example.

On one hand, EU is subsidizing Danish sugar producers (who actually don't produce, they just cost a lot of money). EU is, at the same time, heavily taxing (through customs rules) sugar from the Caribbean, making sure Caribbean sugar grovers cannot compete with European ones. Is this helping the poor? But, alright, maybe the Danish sugar "producers" are poor Danes, and therefore need government assistance?

No. They are not. In my old home town, the town sold land way below market price to IKEA, when they decided to establish themselves there. This is common in Sweden. Big corporations, like IKEA, Volvo, etc, are allowed to buy land cheap (sometimes they get it for free, in exchange for "creating jobs"), and at the same time, small businesses are harassed by the taxation agency, and are not getting a brake. The Scandinavian welfare state is subsidizing big business at the expense of small business, and EU is subsidizing EU farmers at the expense of third world farmers.

The state is giving to rich, at the expense of the poor. It may seem confusing, since there are progressive taxes (and I am not fond of them), making "the rich" pay more than "the poor" in taxes.

However, by hampering competition in the job market, government is holding wages down. This point may be more important in countries like the US and the UK than in Sweden and Norway (if I have understood the situation correctly).

There is a simple reason why government always benefits the rich (at least in the long run). The rich have more money, and easier access to government. Outright bribes may not be that common (at least not in Scandinavia, although that happens to), but my previous examples with IKEA, Volvo, etc, is a good example, when local government is benefitting the rich (big corporation) at the expense of the poor (small firm).

The only solution to this problem is to abolish government.