5 ms·

Why isn't the conclusion that the political systems are too powerful then? Regulatory capture and IP issues are the fault of a political system that can wield t

Why isn't the conclusion that the political systems are too powerful then? Regulatory capture and IP issues are the fault of a political system that can wield too much power. The limited government people would seem to have a strong case that power should be removed from the political system since it is so easily corrupted. I don't quite understand how the answer to a political system easily manipulated is to make it even more powerful.

detcader 9y ago
What do you mean by "powerful" in the first sentence? Are you saying "power" is a scalar quantity?
notacoward 9y ago
Is the problem that governments have too much power, or that they place what power they do have in the service of the rentiers instead of the people? The more power you take away from government, the more government-like power corporations themselves will wield directly. What kind of world will it be when all essential services are provided - or withheld - at the whim of the already powerful? When environmental or workplace regulation are replaced by courts, and the courts themselves are "arbitration services" run by the very same people you're suing, backed by security services run likewise? When the unprofitable or unpopular become "outlaws" in the very real sense of being denied basic services or protections afforded to the more compliant? No, that dystopia - not a coincidence that so many SF writers have predicted it - is not the direction we should go. Governments have a responsibility to represent the people collectively where the people can not represent themselves individually. True liberty requires that tension between people-via-government and other kinds of power. It's awful that the government we have is pulling on the wrong end of the rope, but saying they should drop it entirely is practically the same. They should be pulling on our side. This "make government tiny" philosophy leads to oligarchy and neo-feudalism as sure as Soviet communism did, for much the same reason. It's just another tactic that the autocratically minded use to weaken or discredit their potentially most effective adversary. What we need is a robust government willing to stand up to the oligarchs, not kowtow to them.
- dnautics 9y ago
  No, the Soviet system led to feudalism for a predictable reason, that in fact was predicted in stunning detail before it even existed. http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm Even if you claim that the outcomes are the same, you cannot claim that the paths are identical, that's just lazy argumentation that ignores the history of philosophy.
  - kunimu 9y ago
    What was the predictable reason?
  - notacoward 9y ago
    > Even if you claim that the outcomes are the same, you cannot claim that the paths are identical I didn't claim the paths are identical, and don't believe they are. I said the reasons are much the same. They both deny human nature. One relies on a level of altruism that doesn't exist. The other relies on a level of "rational self interest" that doesn't exist. Both rely on a level of honesty that doesn't exist. Similar reasons, less similar paths, almost identical outcomes. > that's just lazy argumentation No, lazy argumentation is presenting no argument but a link to someone else who says "Time forbids the treatment of that phase of the subject here" when addressing the matter at hand. There is no way to that anarchist (what we would now call libertarian) utopia but the same kind of revolution that led to communism's notable real-world failures. Furthermore, there is no way to maintain such a system and keep it from devolving into oligarchy other than to have a robust government to keep the four monopolies from re-forming. This "anarchy" in practice ends up looking a lot like modern socialism.
makotech222 9y ago
Or maybe people shouldn't be allowed to be acquire so much wealth in the first place. We can keep the government powerful and effective, but remove the overwhelming influence that immense wealth has.
microcolonel 9y ago
This is the UN speaking, I don't think they're allowed to consider conclusions like that.

detcader 9y ago

What do you mean by "powerful" in the first sentence? Are you saying "power" is a scalar quantity?

notacoward 9y ago

Is the problem that governments have too much power, or that they place what power they do have in the service of the rentiers instead of the people? The more power you take away from government, the more government-like power corporations themselves will wield directly. What kind of world will it be when all essential services are provided - or withheld - at the whim of the already powerful? When environmental or workplace regulation are replaced by courts, and the courts themselves are "arbitration services" run by the very same people you're suing, backed by security services run likewise? When the unprofitable or unpopular become "outlaws" in the very real sense of being denied basic services or protections afforded to the more compliant? No, that dystopia - not a coincidence that so many SF writers have predicted it - is not the direction we should go. Governments have a responsibility to represent the people collectively where the people can not represent themselves individually. True liberty requires that tension between people-via-government and other kinds of power. It's awful that the government we have is pulling on the wrong end of the rope, but saying they should drop it entirely is practically the same. They should be pulling on our side. This "make government tiny" philosophy leads to oligarchy and neo-feudalism as sure as Soviet communism did, for much the same reason. It's just another tactic that the autocratically minded use to weaken or discredit their potentially most effective adversary. What we need is a robust government willing to stand up to the oligarchs, not kowtow to them.

dnautics 9y ago
No, the Soviet system led to feudalism for a predictable reason, that in fact was predicted in stunning detail before it even existed. http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm Even if you claim that the outcomes are the same, you cannot claim that the paths are identical, that's just lazy argumentation that ignores the history of philosophy.
- kunimu 9y ago
  What was the predictable reason?
- notacoward 9y ago
  > Even if you claim that the outcomes are the same, you cannot claim that the paths are identical I didn't claim the paths are identical, and don't believe they are. I said the reasons are much the same. They both deny human nature. One relies on a level of altruism that doesn't exist. The other relies on a level of "rational self interest" that doesn't exist. Both rely on a level of honesty that doesn't exist. Similar reasons, less similar paths, almost identical outcomes. > that's just lazy argumentation No, lazy argumentation is presenting no argument but a link to someone else who says "Time forbids the treatment of that phase of the subject here" when addressing the matter at hand. There is no way to that anarchist (what we would now call libertarian) utopia but the same kind of revolution that led to communism's notable real-world failures. Furthermore, there is no way to maintain such a system and keep it from devolving into oligarchy other than to have a robust government to keep the four monopolies from re-forming. This "anarchy" in practice ends up looking a lot like modern socialism.

makotech222 9y ago

Or maybe people shouldn't be allowed to be acquire so much wealth in the first place. We can keep the government powerful and effective, but remove the overwhelming influence that immense wealth has.

microcolonel 9y ago

This is the UN speaking, I don't think they're allowed to consider conclusions like that.