3 ms·

I think that's kind of ignoring a large chunk of history where small, local governments were steamrolled by corporations and it takes action at a nationwide lev

I think that's kind of ignoring a large chunk of history where small, local governments were steamrolled by corporations and it takes action at a nationwide level to counteract this. The primary driver of this is the fact that there is just so much money out there and businesses are faced with a never ending battle to defend it. The arena can be with "big government" but it can also be "city by city" or even with hired security pushing around the new players. I don't think it's a good idea to try and rollback every change that's been made unless you think about why the regulatory body or whatever exists in the first place.

smsm42 10y ago
> where small, local governments were steamrolled by corporations Steamrolled in which way? Usually these corporations enjoy some support from much bigger government - like monopoly, patent, etc. - and usually the way they "steamroll" is capturing the power local government wields and using it against the competition or the opponents. > The primary driver of this is the fact that there is just so much money out there Do you mean the supply of money (or, to be more precise, of value expressed by money, since supply of actual fiat money is arbitrary anyway and can be made as big or small as the government wishes) is fixed? If so, this is decidedly not true. > or even with hired security pushing around the new players. If by pushing around you mean violence, the only entity that can legally employ violence not in self-defense in the government. So if somebody is pushing around somebody else, either government is participating or at least abdicating their duty. > unless you think about why the regulatory body or whatever exists in the first place. The problem is that nobody ever provided the "why" when these bodies are created. Most of them were created "because we can" or "to improve quality" or some other similarly fake and unprovable reason. If you require tangible proof to remove regulation, should not you at least require equally tangible proof to keep or institute one? Or, even more proof?

smsm42 10y ago

> where small, local governments were steamrolled by corporations Steamrolled in which way? Usually these corporations enjoy some support from much bigger government - like monopoly, patent, etc. - and usually the way they "steamroll" is capturing the power local government wields and using it against the competition or the opponents. > The primary driver of this is the fact that there is just so much money out there Do you mean the supply of money (or, to be more precise, of value expressed by money, since supply of actual fiat money is arbitrary anyway and can be made as big or small as the government wishes) is fixed? If so, this is decidedly not true. > or even with hired security pushing around the new players. If by pushing around you mean violence, the only entity that can legally employ violence not in self-defense in the government. So if somebody is pushing around somebody else, either government is participating or at least abdicating their duty. > unless you think about why the regulatory body or whatever exists in the first place. The problem is that nobody ever provided the "why" when these bodies are created. Most of them were created "because we can" or "to improve quality" or some other similarly fake and unprovable reason. If you require tangible proof to remove regulation, should not you at least require equally tangible proof to keep or institute one? Or, even more proof?