6 ms·

You're acting like laws are an unmoving fundamental property of the universe. In reality these very companies have reshaped the laws to their own advantage. Com

You're acting like laws are an unmoving fundamental property of the universe. In reality these very companies have reshaped the laws to their own advantage. Companies that lobby on tax policy demonstrably pay lower taxes; see e.g., https://sunlightfoundation.com/2012/04/16/lobby-more-pay-less-in-taxes/ https://sunlightfoundation.com/2012/04/16/lobby-more-pay-les...

liberte82 9y ago
Watch Chomsky's Requiem for an American Dream if you want a great analysis of the cyclical nature of corporate power being further and further entrenched as they gain more power to write the laws that benefit them.
- ttoinou 9y ago
  Chomsky's solution? Moar state !
  - fny 9y ago
    You inevitably need more state to combat antitrust.
  - culturalzero 9y ago
    Of course, because he's so find of power structures in general. *Queue eye rolling
    - Y_Y 9y ago
      You seem to be overly fond of data structures! ("Cue", rather than "queue")
  - 32hkwejr 9y ago
    AKA Control of the society that is... 1) Openly documented 2) Viewable by all 3) Accountable to the people not the highest bidder Exactly as the Founding Fathers wrote and spoke of it? They were pre-capitalist, saw the origins of capitalist philosophy beginning, and wrote of their fears about where that will lead a country of free people; straight into the back pockets of the elite (remember the crown was essentially the same way, owned/controlled all, required the masses to entertain them and provide value for THEM). You seem convinced contributing to your government is a scam, and you should go shovel whatever for some rich wanker. You got something else to add? Or are you going to just regurgitate the banal fear mongering of the last 200 years?
    - ttoinou 9y ago
      Control of the society What does it even mean ? How do you make the government accountable, transparent and openly documented ? Mystery to me
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        >How do you make the government accountable, transparent and openly documented ? Mystery to me Sure but less of a mystery than how we can make corporations transparent, accountable and openly documented.
        ttoinou 9y ago
        Producing information is costly. There is a market for it but no general magic solution (this applies to both govt and companies, but I guess it's easier to look into a bunch of small companies rather than one huge govt). Corporations are accountable of the wrong they do to third parties. It's the whole point of having a judicial system. How do you control a govt ? By rioting and voting every 4 years ? Here's how it can work for companies : http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarketforCorporateControl.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarketforCorporateControl...
    - slavik81 9y ago
      If the founding fathers were concerned about government capture by the elite, why did they limit the right to vote to land owners? They basically decided that only the wealthy could vote.
      - libertyEQ 9y ago
        At the time (e.g. 18th century), it was the best proxy for education. In the age of the internet, we have at least the prospect of learning at our own pace regardless of financial means. This requires an interest in knowledge while minimizing biases.
        9y ago
  - katastic 9y ago
    Well, regulations work pretty damn well for the FCC's control of the wireless spectrum. So some regulations definitely work.
  - pfranz 9y ago
    (I haven't watched the doc or followed Chomsky much) I think a lot of the contention is putting faith in the "the market" (but I would hope even staunchest libertarians realize at times that can be disproportionately large companies) or governments. I feel like the extremes on both sides put too much faith in one or the other. To keep each other in check one can't be too much larger, or wield too much power over the other. When companies become multinational, things can get weird because they can evade single governments. I'm not saying it's always bad, but it is hard to keep them in check.
    - ttoinou 9y ago
      I put my faith in voluntarily actions, competitive entreprises, innovative ideas and good mechanisms of check and balances. The first word that comes to my mind is 'free market', not 'huge government'..
      - pfranz 9y ago
        I guess I know what side you put faith in. "Free market" is just an illusionary goal--there's no such thing in practice. Every aspect of reality creates some bias to one party or another. Governments try to encourage competitive entreprises, innovative ideas and good mechanisms of check and balances by eliminating monopolies, reducing dynasties/incumbencies and other barriers of entry, in addition to other things like maintaining a fair legal system.
        ttoinou 9y ago
        Every aspect of reality creates some bias to one party or another ? And every government action steals resources from someone and prevents them to do it on their own. Have youbever seen govt reducing barriers of entry ? I need examples Only govt can create monopolies, unless you're talking about mafias.
        pfranz 9y ago
        I wholly admit the government can do those things (that was the point in my original reply). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_market The only example there that could be remotely tied to the government is cable companies (I think the last-mile expense barrier to entry is the main contributor to those monopolies). All of them prevent a "free market" and the idea is that governments break those things up or regulate them. Breaking up a monopoly reduces barrier to entry. After the breakup of at&t, long distance rates dropped due to the new competition. A few things most governments do to reduce the barrier of entry when starting or running a business: maintain a legal system to facilitate agreements between parties, educate a workforce so there's a pool of citizens with basic skills you can hire or sell things to, maintain open access roadways for transport of workforce and goods, maintain a trusted currency for the exchange of goods and services. All of those would be huge hurdles if I wanted to open a lemonade stand. > unless you're talking about mafias. So they're the only fly in the ointment if governments didn't exist? What is the solution to mafias if the government just steals resources? I'm earnestly curious, if governments only oppress a market, where your best or ideal example? Is there any free market that doesn't have a government? How come when governments fail (or countries without strong governments) a strong free market doesn't develop to overtake the EU or US?
  - musage 9y ago
    Quote him. Don't interact with your own straw man, face the man.
    - ttoinou 9y ago
      Yes you are right. I actually was a fund of him years ago. 'More state' is definitely the feeling I remember of him
katastic 9y ago
This is absolutely the key point here. The reason large corporations have more power is ... they have more power. They can afford to not only find loopholes, but also exploit ones with higher barrier-to-entry, AND lobby for additional ones. Many corporations probably DON'T want loopholes that are "too easy" because then smaller businesses would be able to use them as well and become potential competitors. Kind of like how Comcast sues any potential competitor into oblivion using frivolous lawsuits. The cost to entry into the ISP market? The price of a good legal defense that can defeat Comcast. (Read: Nothing to do with the actual hardware/manpower)
culturalzero 9y ago
I wonder how many of these comments are made by Apple's legal or PR team posing as normal people... Certainly they have the reach and resources for this kind of thing too. Rarely do we get to have a real public discussion on such topics without adulteration by these parties with personal motivations and associated power.
- threeseed 9y ago
  Be serious. (1) You really think Apple cares about the discussions on one thread of Hacker News ? (2) Even if they did how would it be an effective use of resources. It may shift a handful of people at most. When instead that time could be spent speaking with journalists or writing press releases that could actually shift a lot of people. (3) It's a slippery slope to keep calling everyone you disagree with shills or employees of a company. Especially since on an anonymous forum they could never be able to defend themselves.
  - smashingfiasco 9y ago
    Oh, they definitely do keep tabs and actively participate in places like HN. You must have missed seeing this a few years ago... > Members of Apple PR seek tabloid photos of celebrities holding iPhones, while others read Apple-focused blogs actively, and keep tabs on prominent Apple beat writers using anonymized social media accounts. A former Apple PR employee notes that the team enjoys being an “overall watchdog,” monitoring what the media is saying about the company every day. https://9to5mac.com/2014/08/29/part-3-strategies-the-art-of-deep-background-and-controlling-the-press/ https://9to5mac.com/2014/08/29/part-3-strategies-the-art-of-...
    - libertyEQ 9y ago
      I've got numerous concerns about YC, but I really like HN. There is a certain decorum we must not violate or we risk becoming like the mess that is the rest of much of the web right now. We need to focus on the content of the arguments being made, not trying to determine what tribes the others belongs to.

liberte82 9y ago

Watch Chomsky's Requiem for an American Dream if you want a great analysis of the cyclical nature of corporate power being further and further entrenched as they gain more power to write the laws that benefit them.

ttoinou 9y ago
Chomsky's solution? Moar state !
- fny 9y ago
  You inevitably need more state to combat antitrust.
- culturalzero 9y ago
  Of course, because he's so find of power structures in general. *Queue eye rolling
  - Y_Y 9y ago
    You seem to be overly fond of data structures! ("Cue", rather than "queue")
- 32hkwejr 9y ago
  AKA Control of the society that is... 1) Openly documented 2) Viewable by all 3) Accountable to the people not the highest bidder Exactly as the Founding Fathers wrote and spoke of it? They were pre-capitalist, saw the origins of capitalist philosophy beginning, and wrote of their fears about where that will lead a country of free people; straight into the back pockets of the elite (remember the crown was essentially the same way, owned/controlled all, required the masses to entertain them and provide value for THEM). You seem convinced contributing to your government is a scam, and you should go shovel whatever for some rich wanker. You got something else to add? Or are you going to just regurgitate the banal fear mongering of the last 200 years?
  - ttoinou 9y ago
    Control of the society What does it even mean ? How do you make the government accountable, transparent and openly documented ? Mystery to me
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >How do you make the government accountable, transparent and openly documented ? Mystery to me Sure but less of a mystery than how we can make corporations transparent, accountable and openly documented.
      - ttoinou 9y ago
        Producing information is costly. There is a market for it but no general magic solution (this applies to both govt and companies, but I guess it's easier to look into a bunch of small companies rather than one huge govt). Corporations are accountable of the wrong they do to third parties. It's the whole point of having a judicial system. How do you control a govt ? By rioting and voting every 4 years ? Here's how it can work for companies : http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarketforCorporateControl.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarketforCorporateControl...
  - slavik81 9y ago
    If the founding fathers were concerned about government capture by the elite, why did they limit the right to vote to land owners? They basically decided that only the wealthy could vote.
    - libertyEQ 9y ago
      At the time (e.g. 18th century), it was the best proxy for education. In the age of the internet, we have at least the prospect of learning at our own pace regardless of financial means. This requires an interest in knowledge while minimizing biases.
      - 9y ago
- katastic 9y ago
  Well, regulations work pretty damn well for the FCC's control of the wireless spectrum. So some regulations definitely work.
- pfranz 9y ago
  (I haven't watched the doc or followed Chomsky much) I think a lot of the contention is putting faith in the "the market" (but I would hope even staunchest libertarians realize at times that can be disproportionately large companies) or governments. I feel like the extremes on both sides put too much faith in one or the other. To keep each other in check one can't be too much larger, or wield too much power over the other. When companies become multinational, things can get weird because they can evade single governments. I'm not saying it's always bad, but it is hard to keep them in check.
  - ttoinou 9y ago
    I put my faith in voluntarily actions, competitive entreprises, innovative ideas and good mechanisms of check and balances. The first word that comes to my mind is 'free market', not 'huge government'..
    - pfranz 9y ago
      I guess I know what side you put faith in. "Free market" is just an illusionary goal--there's no such thing in practice. Every aspect of reality creates some bias to one party or another. Governments try to encourage competitive entreprises, innovative ideas and good mechanisms of check and balances by eliminating monopolies, reducing dynasties/incumbencies and other barriers of entry, in addition to other things like maintaining a fair legal system.
      - ttoinou 9y ago
        Every aspect of reality creates some bias to one party or another ? And every government action steals resources from someone and prevents them to do it on their own. Have youbever seen govt reducing barriers of entry ? I need examples Only govt can create monopolies, unless you're talking about mafias.
        pfranz 9y ago
        I wholly admit the government can do those things (that was the point in my original reply). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_market The only example there that could be remotely tied to the government is cable companies (I think the last-mile expense barrier to entry is the main contributor to those monopolies). All of them prevent a "free market" and the idea is that governments break those things up or regulate them. Breaking up a monopoly reduces barrier to entry. After the breakup of at&t, long distance rates dropped due to the new competition. A few things most governments do to reduce the barrier of entry when starting or running a business: maintain a legal system to facilitate agreements between parties, educate a workforce so there's a pool of citizens with basic skills you can hire or sell things to, maintain open access roadways for transport of workforce and goods, maintain a trusted currency for the exchange of goods and services. All of those would be huge hurdles if I wanted to open a lemonade stand. > unless you're talking about mafias. So they're the only fly in the ointment if governments didn't exist? What is the solution to mafias if the government just steals resources? I'm earnestly curious, if governments only oppress a market, where your best or ideal example? Is there any free market that doesn't have a government? How come when governments fail (or countries without strong governments) a strong free market doesn't develop to overtake the EU or US?
- musage 9y ago
  Quote him. Don't interact with your own straw man, face the man.
  - ttoinou 9y ago
    Yes you are right. I actually was a fund of him years ago. 'More state' is definitely the feeling I remember of him

katastic 9y ago

This is absolutely the key point here. The reason large corporations have more power is ... they have more power. They can afford to not only find loopholes, but also exploit ones with higher barrier-to-entry, AND lobby for additional ones. Many corporations probably DON'T want loopholes that are "too easy" because then smaller businesses would be able to use them as well and become potential competitors. Kind of like how Comcast sues any potential competitor into oblivion using frivolous lawsuits. The cost to entry into the ISP market? The price of a good legal defense that can defeat Comcast. (Read: Nothing to do with the actual hardware/manpower)

culturalzero 9y ago

I wonder how many of these comments are made by Apple's legal or PR team posing as normal people... Certainly they have the reach and resources for this kind of thing too. Rarely do we get to have a real public discussion on such topics without adulteration by these parties with personal motivations and associated power.

threeseed 9y ago
Be serious. (1) You really think Apple cares about the discussions on one thread of Hacker News ? (2) Even if they did how would it be an effective use of resources. It may shift a handful of people at most. When instead that time could be spent speaking with journalists or writing press releases that could actually shift a lot of people. (3) It's a slippery slope to keep calling everyone you disagree with shills or employees of a company. Especially since on an anonymous forum they could never be able to defend themselves.
- smashingfiasco 9y ago
  Oh, they definitely do keep tabs and actively participate in places like HN. You must have missed seeing this a few years ago... > Members of Apple PR seek tabloid photos of celebrities holding iPhones, while others read Apple-focused blogs actively, and keep tabs on prominent Apple beat writers using anonymized social media accounts. A former Apple PR employee notes that the team enjoys being an “overall watchdog,” monitoring what the media is saying about the company every day. https://9to5mac.com/2014/08/29/part-3-strategies-the-art-of-deep-background-and-controlling-the-press/ https://9to5mac.com/2014/08/29/part-3-strategies-the-art-of-...
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
    I've got numerous concerns about YC, but I really like HN. There is a certain decorum we must not violate or we risk becoming like the mess that is the rest of much of the web right now. We need to focus on the content of the arguments being made, not trying to determine what tribes the others belongs to.