Review of: Tyranny, Inc.: How Private Power Crushed American Liberty—and What to Do About It
Author: Sohrab Amari
Publisher: Forum Books, 2023
If we think of tyranny, it’s usually an autocracy or dictatorship. Authoritarianism can also take the form of an oligarchy or tyranny by elites. But can a system of free markets and competition also be a form of tyranny that forces its will on society? Sohrab Ahmari believes it is, and makes his case in Tyranny, Inc. that it is a tyranny that society refuses to see or acknowledge.
As a social conservative and convert to Catholicism in 2016, Ahmari argues that oppression by corporations, along with the evils of modern liberalism, keep the poor and middle classes from thriving through the abuse of a few asset-owning wealthy owners over those without assets. Rather than liberating people with low incomes, markets—through large businesses, including Amazon and Starbucks—subjugate the less fortunate by exploiting low-income workers. Hiring practices, in particular, deprive many of their rights. These rights can take the form of loss of intellectual and personal information. This makes life for the majority of marginal workers not only insecure but stressful and unjust.
According to Ahmari, the poor are easily duped by asset-rich holders who can hedge their bets, spreading risks over the ownership of several businesses and investments. At the same time, workers are fully invested in one job, which leaves them vulnerable and compliant. Tyranny, Inc. shows how unfair and complex employment contracts can easily scam workers who unknowingly sign away their rights, including “gag clauses” and “non-compete agreements.” After all, who reads all the fine print when one desperately needs a job? Without control over their conditions of employment, too many workers are exploited and alienated from their work and families. Workers do have recourse through the courts, but too often, these remedies are expensive and time-consuming. To make matters worse, workers are subjected to bullying by corporations that push woke social policies, as in the case of Disney.
The only solution, according to Ahmari, is a political one. It is up to the state to tilt the scales of justice towards the powerless worker through greater corporate regulations that promote the interests of workers, including unravelling the damage caused by globalization and trade agreements that have destroyed good-paying and secure jobs. He also advocates policies that make it easier to join unions that fight for the interests of workers. In short, Ahmari wants to take America back to the nostalgic days of the 1950s when unions were strong and the New Deal “left behind a political map for building a better economy and a more authentically free society.”
The reaction to Tyranny, Inc. has met with favourable reviews from the Left and deep skepticism on the Right—though not exclusively. The pundit Jonah Goldberg aptly labels Ahmari a “Pro-life New Dealer.” There is much to agree with in how capitalism in its rawest form can isolate and oppress some workers and their families who are buffeted around from job to job as the economy stumbles around, creating and destroying jobs and making life miserable for the working poor who never catch their bearings. The question is, are Ahmari’s solutions the best options?
The first problem is one of definition. Is tyranny the proper description of what’s going on? It does capture the notion that there is a victim and a victimizer. But the intent is hard to define. Markets deliver goods and services as efficiently as possible without the apparent intention of subjugating anyone. One can argue that intent is irrelevant if the result is harmful. The state has a role in mitigating the harm not by distorting the economic process but by supporting those damaged by the unintended consequences of market failures. Distorting the market by legislative regulations favouring labour may do more harm than good.
Unionization has declined because the nature of manufacturing has changed drastically. High production costs have also driven jobs offshore. Unions today are dominated by government service employees rather than old-fashioned steel or production workers. Ahmari writes, “American workers did best under the combination of large private enterprise [and] high union density.” But large unionized manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past, never to return in an era of rapid technology and growing AI.
The author may believe that more regulatory control of corporations is necessary to balance the scales of justice, but he underestimates the damage of overregulation. One study by the OECD showed that excessive industrial regulations throughout the West, especially in transportation and communications, lowered productivity throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Do we really want to return to the economy of the late 1970s that was plagued with strikes, inflation, and high unemployment?
Many of the problems raised in Tyranny, Inc. are resolvable without reimposing industrial regulatory measures. Low-income workers who have shown their worth and value during the pandemic need our support to earn as much as possible by strengthening laws that protect their rights. But bringing back the reactionary policies of 50 years ago is to replace one tyranny with another. Let’s not forget G.K. Chesterton’s advice that we should think carefully before taking down fences and remember why they were there in the first place. The same with regulations; let’s appreciate why they were removed before putting them back up again.
