5 ms·
solution: Make the political system have less influence in our lives. Make politicians less valuable to purchase
by djschnei 9y ago
solution: Make the political system have less influence in our lives. Make politicians less valuable to purchase
- maxxxxx 9y agoThat sounds great in theory but is pretty unrealistic in today's societies.
- djschnei 9y agoUhhhhh, making our lives less political is now considered entirely unrealistic? Fun times...
- maxxxxx 9y agoHow will you be running a 400 million people country?
- djschnei 9y agoI'd write some document, call it the law-of-the-land, make everyone that wanted to stay agree with it, everyone else could leave. It would set up some very precise and strict rules about what I (the government) was allowed to do. I would let individuals cooperate as they see best. I would protect people's rights and punish those who infringe their neighbors. I'd probably follow these rules for a couple hundred years, then say "screw it" and do whatever I wanted.
- CraigJPerry 9y agoWhat would the replacement look like, where would the displaced power go?
- jandrese 9y agoI'm sure benevolent corporations will step in to fill that power vacuum. It could usher in a glorious new guilded age.
- djschnei 9y agohahah yes, the old "you believe in smaller government so you must want unlimited corporate power" argument. Not sure there is an easier way to illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the libertarian position.
- jandrese 9y agoIf government is limited, what is the check on corporate power? What is going to fill that void? The market? The market only cares about money. There is no magical fairy that will make profit oriented enterprises suddenly care about non-profit objectives. The old "people won't buy stuff from companies that are dicking them over or killing the envionrment", always conveniently ignores the fact that if one company is behaving badly but getting better profits (exploiting their workers for short term gain, dumping toxic waste into the rivers, etc...), they will ultimately consume any well behaved competitors. Unfettered markets are pure dog eat dog territory, and frivolities like environmental protection and human rights do not survive. We know what unregulated markets look like, they are cities filled with factories churning out toxic smoke, hospitals full of terminal cancer cases, people dying on the street, and everything else you read about in the Industrial Age. Or go to any factory city in China. They're making tons of shareholder profit and they're dying at the same time. Libertarians are the worst at not fully thinking through the ramifications of their positions.
- djschnei 9y agoGovernment IS the check on corporate power! You are the one who is misunderstood. As a libertarian, I believe governments are vital to a civil society (never said I was an anarchist). I believe governments SHOULD have (granted to it by the people who it represents) pretty ultimate powers in dealing with bad-actors. However, those powers should only be used in very specific situations; Does person A's actions infringe on person B's rights. Spewing toxic smoke into the air and making me sick is an act of physical violence towards me; the government should step in. The government picking winners and losers in a marketplace based on special interests and who can lobby more effectively doesn't protect my rights - it infringes on them. All people, whether they work for a massive corporation or within the government, make most of their decisions based on personal self interest. Give corporate entities unfettered power, they will stomp on people. Give government unfettered power, they will stomp on people. It's all about channeling the individual's drive to improve their own life towards the best interest of the collective. A free-market and a government whose sole purpose it is to protect individual rights, is the best way to do it. I don't believe in unlimited corporate power because people are fallible. I don't believe in unlimited government power because people are fallible.
- djschnei 9y agoBack to the individual? The government should protect you from corporations, other individuals, other countries from infringing on your rights to do what you see best. Not dictate or meddle in every aspect of your life. They should be a referee, not a player. I don't think that vacuum needs to exist; I don't think people need rulers.
- zizek23 9y agoWon't they simply purchase what does have more influence in our lives then?
- erikb 9y agosure. and counter ecological collapse by simply stopping to breathe right? Look, there are things that can't be avoided. And most people like to be lead and kept in an illusion of safety. That disgusting fact may actually be what makes us stronger than all other current participants on this planet.
- djschnei 9y ago"if the government was any smaller, the environment would DIE!" "People need rulers!" We wouldn't get along.
- drewrv 9y agoI can't figure out why this attitude is so prevalent among techies. Imagine if we gave up on computers because there was a bug!
- tynpeddler 9y agoThis solution is less scary than it seems. If you're worried about "power", and who has it, just remember that not all power is equivalent, or needs to be held by the state. For example, states hold a limited power to seize property. I'm pretty sure that no one wants states to have an unlimited power to seize property. The states power to kill is similarly curtailed. One power that that different levels of the government seem to be expanding more and more, is what I like to call 'Special Consideration'. Whenever a city pours huge amounts of money in the form of bonds and tax breaks into a sports stadium for their local team, that's special consideration; it's a financial transfer for a specific private entity that is not automatically available to other private entities. Special consideration can be hugely hugely profitable for the private entity and incentivizes lobbying. There are two points to keep in mind. Not all special consideration is bad, and not all forms of corruption fall under special consideration(obviously), but I do think that curtailing government's power to grant favors to individual private actors, and thereby distort the market, would decrease the value of lobbying.