2 ms·

>So, to maximize freedom, we need to limit concentrations of wealth/power. Yes that makes some less free, but it makes the greatest freedom for all. Like I sai

>So, to maximize freedom, we need to limit concentrations of wealth/power. Yes that makes some less free, but it makes the greatest freedom for all. Like I said, it's like trying to boil away the ocean. It's futile, given the scale and complexity of the economy, and given that you can't touch foreign sources of capital. In the attempt to control the entirety of the economy, you're giving governing authorities enormous powers of surveillance and interjection, which I strongly suggest will end up exacerbating income inequality even if that is the opposite of the original intent. I oppose campaign finance laws, because I believe it's another case of trying to boil away the ocean: in this case, control how much people spend on political advertisements. And once again you're giving enormous powers to governing authorities to dictate private actions, and this power can and will easily be exploited by special interests to further entrench the power. I'm glad you agree on the Athenian democracy model or something like it. Something like jury duty is exactly what I advocate.

toss1 9y ago
Yes, the problem of regulatory capture is enormous, and once captured, can actually provide entities with concentrated wealth/power (really the same thing) with extra leverage to control it. One partial solution that has been shown to be somewhat durable is the divided government, multiple co-equal branches with different duties and capabilities. I think the American experiment has shown that we could probably do better with 4 or 5 branches, but three is a decent start. But it seems like we agree on the overall problem, which is how to prevent excessive concentrations of wealth/power, and do so in a society that has not grown the cultural wisdom and strength to do it intrinsically (Norway/Sweden being partial examples, where excessive wealth is shunned and prevented at many levels). I used to think that few/no laws/govt was the way to go, but every example I've seen, small differences simply accelerate into incredible concentrations of wealth/power at surprising speed. You keep arguing against my solution (limited/divided govt, with each component structurally defined to minimize concentrations of power and/or balance the concentrated power). What's yours?
- Jabanga 9y ago
  My solution is government funding open source alternatives to private networks. This is an actual solution, rather than regulations that violate people's property rights. Moreover by repealing regulations on voluntary interactions, one of the primary sources of income inequality will be eliminated. Regulations currently almost solely increase income inequality.

toss1 9y ago

Yes, the problem of regulatory capture is enormous, and once captured, can actually provide entities with concentrated wealth/power (really the same thing) with extra leverage to control it. One partial solution that has been shown to be somewhat durable is the divided government, multiple co-equal branches with different duties and capabilities. I think the American experiment has shown that we could probably do better with 4 or 5 branches, but three is a decent start. But it seems like we agree on the overall problem, which is how to prevent excessive concentrations of wealth/power, and do so in a society that has not grown the cultural wisdom and strength to do it intrinsically (Norway/Sweden being partial examples, where excessive wealth is shunned and prevented at many levels). I used to think that few/no laws/govt was the way to go, but every example I've seen, small differences simply accelerate into incredible concentrations of wealth/power at surprising speed. You keep arguing against my solution (limited/divided govt, with each component structurally defined to minimize concentrations of power and/or balance the concentrated power). What's yours?

Jabanga 9y ago
My solution is government funding open source alternatives to private networks. This is an actual solution, rather than regulations that violate people's property rights. Moreover by repealing regulations on voluntary interactions, one of the primary sources of income inequality will be eliminated. Regulations currently almost solely increase income inequality.