That's absolutely not a "government" thing, it's an issue in every large organisation and large companies are absolutely not immune to it.

Government just happens to be the largest of the large.

Yep, and the really interesting thing is when you combine libertarian principles with this insight. If large corporations (and large concentrations of individual wealth) are as undesirable as large governments, then the economic model starts to look very different!

Out of curiosity, how would a "libertarian" propose we achieve economic anything without large individual concentrations of wealth?

Remove limited liability as a concept: stop funding the extrinsic risks of large corporate actors. Don't shield stockholders from criminal and unethical acts committed in the organization's name. Watch the incentives change and only very small companies exist. Where necessary, big companies will be run VERY cautiously, as they should be.

EDIT: of course this would "economically devastating", at least to the present way of being, can you imagine the risk of being an officer in a large corporation or a stockholder? but maybe the economic advantages of reduced corruption and mega-corp inefficiency would soften the blow in the medium to long term?

Changing the landscape of the Savannah in favor of "only tiny cheetahs" risks deleting cheetahs altogether. What level of concentration is undesirable, and what level is necessary for the next investment?

The wording of your question confuses me, it's not clear whether you're asking about "large individual concentrations of wealth" as a cause or effect of "economic anything", aka are you asking how one can achieve economic anything without a pre-conditional individual concentrations of wealth or are you asking how one can achieve economic anything while avoiding the subsequent trap of large individual concentrations of wealth.

In context and logically I would assume the latter as those large concentrations are why you get large organisations to manage them, but I wanted to be sure.

I had not considered moving the question to either end of the bookshelf, is it concentrations first and then economic action, or economic action and then large concentrations. Instead of waiting for the boolean T or F on which it is, we could answer both and see:

"One needs money to make a business." (not possible without large concentrations of wealth, business as a result of wealth)

"Businesses occasionally make people super wealthy." (happens as a result of economic action, wealth as a result of business).

Does not the reaction halt if there is not enough wealth to make a business?

Essentially much stronger anti-trust laws which break up large institutions, and distribute large concentrations of wealth. It's the only way to spread power.

Thanks for your reply! this is a very interesting dialogue about Wealth Concentration and Ability to Make Economic Moves. Recall Standard Oil, and how anti-trust laws were passed to try and break up this monopoly, but it was many decades too late as the damage had been thoroughly done -- wiring for oil oligarchy was set in place and could not be untangled. In these cases, is there a more elegant solution than the post-fact "since we cannot create competition, naturally or artificially, split your winnings with the government." ?

Destroying concentrations of wealth, but keeping individual humans responsible for wealth echoes the faulty assumptions of communism; if we dilute economic power too greatly by reducing concentration too much, we may be able to allocate excess funds to the creation of new competition in the domain (government-funded anti-monopols), but that simply deletes profit and deletes the profit-incentive of new industry.

"Power always comes from some abstract entity that everyone can talk about, but no one can point to."

I find a huge chasm in understanding between wealth concentrated on individual humans who have their own motivations, and concentrations of wealth in corporations or distributed decision making entities. Which are we opposed to?

sort of a weird question. libertarians don't necessarily consider large concentrations of private wealth to be a problem in and of itself. they are concerned more with the power of institutions, usually (but not always) the state.

the libertarian dream, as I understand it, is sort of like the unix philosophy applied to business: a large number of small/medium-size firms each offering a focused line of products. of course, libertarians disagree on exactly how to get to that world, but most don't oppose stuff like antitrust regulation on principle. intervening in the case of market failure is usually considered to be one of the (few) legitimate roles of the state.

Yes, but the position of libertarians with this attitude is inconsistent, because in a capitalist society, having a large concentration of wealth implies a concentration of power. To be a consistent libertarian you must oppose disproportionate concentrations of power in all forms.