3 ms·

How can you be more pluralist than by letting each citizen keep their own power?

pjc50 9y ago
That's a nice slogan, but empty without an analysis of power relations. Participants in a market are not automatically equal in power! Especially important in the sub-discussion about healthcare that's going on here. There's disparity of information (not every citizen has a complete knowledge of all possible medical specialisations), disparity of capability (medical conditions can be literally incapacitating), and disparity of risk (most medical conditions are mostly randomly distributed).
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >Participants in a market are not automatically equal in power! Yes, that's true. The world is not fair and we're not all equal in power. How is the solution to that to take 80% of everyone's income and hand over control of it to a select few in government? In a free market system at least each participant is free to walk away from any given transaction. Now you want to take away even that.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
By taking that statement to it's logical endpoint for a start, rather than the crazy libertarian version where "keeping your own power" includes a government that is ensuring what you call your own power stays your own power. Or, "What is Property?"
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Would you let Donald Trump personally manage your 401k? Do you believe, in doing so, that he would have your best interest at heart? If not, then why would you think it'd be a good idea to let him have control over your Social Security? Who do you think is better capable of making decisions about your own children's best interests when it comes to getting educated: you or Betsy DeVoss? The more centralized power/money is, the more ripe it will be for corruptive forces. The less powerful the government, the less damage a bad actor can do when they inevitably get elected.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    >The more centralized power/money is, the more ripe it will be for corruptive forces. If this is the basis of your argument, then again there is only one logical endpoint. "What is property?... Property is theft!" Ownernship centralizes power over that thing in the hands of a person or small group. The US libertarian view is anarchy with property rights stapled on, which does nothing except help the rich get more powerful. They use the same arguments about how freedom is essential and government interference is bad, but ignore how there is no freedom on private property and want government guaranteeing their status.

That's a nice slogan, but empty without an analysis of power relations. Participants in a market are not automatically equal in power! Especially important in the sub-discussion about healthcare that's going on here. There's disparity of information (not every citizen has a complete knowledge of all possible medical specialisations), disparity of capability (medical conditions can be literally incapacitating), and disparity of risk (most medical conditions are mostly randomly distributed).

Consultant32452 9y ago
>Participants in a market are not automatically equal in power! Yes, that's true. The world is not fair and we're not all equal in power. How is the solution to that to take 80% of everyone's income and hand over control of it to a select few in government? In a free market system at least each participant is free to walk away from any given transaction. Now you want to take away even that.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

By taking that statement to it's logical endpoint for a start, rather than the crazy libertarian version where "keeping your own power" includes a government that is ensuring what you call your own power stays your own power. Or, "What is Property?"

Consultant32452 9y ago
Would you let Donald Trump personally manage your 401k? Do you believe, in doing so, that he would have your best interest at heart? If not, then why would you think it'd be a good idea to let him have control over your Social Security? Who do you think is better capable of making decisions about your own children's best interests when it comes to getting educated: you or Betsy DeVoss? The more centralized power/money is, the more ripe it will be for corruptive forces. The less powerful the government, the less damage a bad actor can do when they inevitably get elected.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >The more centralized power/money is, the more ripe it will be for corruptive forces. If this is the basis of your argument, then again there is only one logical endpoint. "What is property?... Property is theft!" Ownernship centralizes power over that thing in the hands of a person or small group. The US libertarian view is anarchy with property rights stapled on, which does nothing except help the rich get more powerful. They use the same arguments about how freedom is essential and government interference is bad, but ignore how there is no freedom on private property and want government guaranteeing their status.