3 ms·

So -- insurance-based healthcare with barriers of entry for newcomers, revolving doors, overcharging for everything and regulated to hell is now free market? N

So -- insurance-based healthcare with barriers of entry for newcomers, revolving doors, overcharging for everything and regulated to hell is now free market? Noncompete agreements, preventing free competition of labour -- those are free market? And the answer to these problems is somehow _more_ regulation, and more lock-in arrangements with fixed payments to benefit the usual suspects? Whoa. Free market _does_ solve many problems. Healthy competition and low barriers of entry is the only way to make things more affordable. However, free market is not a natural state of affairs -- ironically, we need government help to promote it, to create competitive playing field. Unfortunately, this is also not natural, and corruption prevails. Socialism equals inefficiency. Revolving door crony "capitalism" is indistinguishable from oligarchic socialism. Only competition brings efficiency to complex systems.

ensiferum 9y ago
"... we need government help to promote it, to create competitive playing field." Level playing field. but in the us the playing field is never level. Big money companies lobby rigorously to rig the game for their advantage.
- atemerev 9y ago
  Lobbying is fine, when it is open, transparent and competitive (there are always stale laws that need to be corrected). The alternative (lobbying is officially prohibited and everything happens behind closed doors) is worse. Direct democracy (like we have in Switzerland), where most of laws are initiated by the public and voted in (or rejected) on referendums also helps. But it only works with fast enough iterations, where poorly thought laws can be easily repented. However, representative democracy is worse in any way.
  - ensiferum 9y ago
    "Lobbying is fine, when it is open, transparent and competitive (there are always stale laws that need to be corrected). The alternative (lobbying is officially prohibited and everything happens behind closed doors) is worse." It seems that what happens now is the combination of those two. Politicians take money (and campaign donations etc.) more or less in secrecy from private organizations/corporations. I don't think there's any way for them to represent the people anymore in an unbiased fashion. They just represent the companies where they get their money from. But is the goverment for the people or for the businesses? In the US for the latter.
  - geebee 9y ago
    I'm not sure it is ok under those circumstances. Lawrence Lessig suddenly changed his focus from copyright law to corruption after many years. He had an epiphany of sorts - he's been right for decades, but it doesn't matter. Why? Because corporations can openly hand out cash to congress. So, he focused on corruption, but exactly as you've defined it to be ok. He explicitly said he isn't talking about lobbying behind closed doors. He's talking about the fact that Disney can walk into congress with a pile of cash, completely open about what it wants to do: we're giving you cash so for the first time ever, nothing new will enter the public domain for the next 20 years (or perhaps more, in 20 years, there will be a knock on your door, and we'll be there, with a pile of cash, to make that 40 years instead of 20).[1] Is it really not corruption if it's in the open? This seems like almost total capitulation to corruption and corporate rule. [1] probably clear, but I should emphasize, this is what I interpreted Lessig's argument to be. Read his words for his opinion.

ensiferum 9y ago

"... we need government help to promote it, to create competitive playing field." Level playing field. but in the us the playing field is never level. Big money companies lobby rigorously to rig the game for their advantage.

atemerev 9y ago
Lobbying is fine, when it is open, transparent and competitive (there are always stale laws that need to be corrected). The alternative (lobbying is officially prohibited and everything happens behind closed doors) is worse. Direct democracy (like we have in Switzerland), where most of laws are initiated by the public and voted in (or rejected) on referendums also helps. But it only works with fast enough iterations, where poorly thought laws can be easily repented. However, representative democracy is worse in any way.
- ensiferum 9y ago
  "Lobbying is fine, when it is open, transparent and competitive (there are always stale laws that need to be corrected). The alternative (lobbying is officially prohibited and everything happens behind closed doors) is worse." It seems that what happens now is the combination of those two. Politicians take money (and campaign donations etc.) more or less in secrecy from private organizations/corporations. I don't think there's any way for them to represent the people anymore in an unbiased fashion. They just represent the companies where they get their money from. But is the goverment for the people or for the businesses? In the US for the latter.
- geebee 9y ago
  I'm not sure it is ok under those circumstances. Lawrence Lessig suddenly changed his focus from copyright law to corruption after many years. He had an epiphany of sorts - he's been right for decades, but it doesn't matter. Why? Because corporations can openly hand out cash to congress. So, he focused on corruption, but exactly as you've defined it to be ok. He explicitly said he isn't talking about lobbying behind closed doors. He's talking about the fact that Disney can walk into congress with a pile of cash, completely open about what it wants to do: we're giving you cash so for the first time ever, nothing new will enter the public domain for the next 20 years (or perhaps more, in 20 years, there will be a knock on your door, and we'll be there, with a pile of cash, to make that 40 years instead of 20).[1] Is it really not corruption if it's in the open? This seems like almost total capitulation to corruption and corporate rule. [1] probably clear, but I should emphasize, this is what I interpreted Lessig's argument to be. Read his words for his opinion.