7 ms·

That's a good argument, and to many it's an argument for wealth redistribution. I prefer to look at it instead as an argument for limiting the powers of governm

That's a good argument, and to many it's an argument for wealth redistribution. I prefer to look at it instead as an argument for limiting the powers of government in order to limit its susceptibility to corruption.

cal5k 9y ago
The main thrust is that this seems to simply be a consequence of differing ability/circumstance, and there is no counter-example in recorded history - even our views on the "noble savage" are probably skewed by the fact that large hunter-gatherer societies with enough wealth to allow accumulation have been stamped out. The follow-on question is: what do we do about it? Attempts to artificially "correct" inequality for the sake of correction are universally disastrous. Progressive taxation and redistribution are, I think, reasonable, as is universal basic income, and sound government has a huge role to play. But the goal should be to provide basic services and create opportunity for the bottom 50%, not wrest control of wealth from the top 1%. The goal of actually stamping out inequality is a fool's errand.
- wiz21c 9y ago
  Fortunately, thanks to your solution, the basic services for the bottom 50% will make them no less free than slaves... (admittedly, history happens like that but it's been continually fought)
tdmule 9y ago
Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.
- psyc 9y ago
  I believe we are going to find it increasingly essential to view corporations as a second government that has a particular relationship with the nominal one.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    The key difference is that you can opt out of your relationship with one, but not the other. At least they tend to lock horns. To the extent that the two collaborate, we should be suspicious.
    - pohl 9y ago
      The choice of opting out only exists where competition exists. Without a government to keep corporations in check, your ability to opt out would evaporate.
      - gwright 9y ago
        And yet a powerful government is really good using its power to limit competition, discourage competitors, protect incumbents, and so on.
        noobermin 9y ago
        A powerful government is also really good at using its power to increase competition, encourage competitors, protect new comers, and so on. And a powerful government in command of its people will do more of that.
        gwright 9y ago
        What government "power" is required to 'encourage competitors'? If there is business opportunity the market will attract participants all by itself without any need for government intervention. In my experience, government incentives are generally misguided and force mis-allocation of resources. That is to say the government is distorting the market to favor activity that wouldn't otherwise be attractive to a business.
        galvin 9y ago
        Net neutrality would be a good example.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  What sorts of instances of corporate control are you thinking of here? Most examples that come to my mind involve corporations wielding the power of the state over people.
  - philipkglass 9y ago
    Control of mineral resources, for example. Mining and oil/gas companies are already some of the largest corporations in existence. These are capital-intensive businesses where small entities often can't survive market downturns. Small resource owners get acquired by bigger ones during periods of financial distress, or juniors pre-emptively try to join forces with established companies as soon as they have a proven project to develop. The "natural" tendency, in absence of limits imposed by states, would be to reap maximum economies of scale, control over pricing, and resilience to downturn by combining extractive businesses without limit. A handful of giant corporations could acquire a commanding position over every mineral commodity required by industrial civilization. OPEC could be a very effective price-setter indeed were it a transnational corporation with unified ownership. Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members. If you picture eliminating the state altogether, including its enforcement of property rights and contracts, then I concede that the powers attendant to wealth would no longer involve a de jure state. I think that the powers of concentrated wealth would remain nonetheless. Wealth would hire private guards to exclude others from their mines instead of using the law enforcement apparatus of a state, for example.
    - theseatoms 9y ago
      > Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members. So, "competition"? Cartels in general are unstable because of these internal competitive forces. I get that corporations with large market share can set prices in the short term. But every resource has a substitute. Even oil. So even price-setters have to operate within limits or risk their power being marginalized. I am picturing the elimination of the state. And I agree that one can enforce his own property rights.
mpweiher 9y ago
Actually, government is generally a limiting factor on the power of wealth, just like it is a limiting factor of the power of violence etc. That's kind of why we have governments. Now of course wealth tries to subvert that, and particularly in the anglo-saxon countries, the US first among them, it has been particularly successful.
adamlett 9y ago
The government is a small part of the state. The police and armed forces are part of the state, and can be corrupted, even if the government is impotent. All the individual rights and guarantees in the world are of no help to you, if the generals or police chiefs are corrupt.
- hippich 9y ago
  that is really funny mistype :)) makes one think... :)
xapata 9y ago
Capital concentration increases the impact of capital mis-allocation. A market economy is more efficient than a command economy. A market with only one capitalist is a de facto command economy.
audunw 9y ago
A small and limited government is a weak government. A weak government is susceptible to corruption. To avoid corruption you need the state and the collection of the most powerful corporate/private actors be of similar size, and they must be as isolated and independent as possible. This way you get a balance of power, rather than one corrupting the other. The problem in the US is the isolation/independence part. Money in politics and revolving doors has corrupted the balance. “Limited government” is an idea sold by people who want government to be weaker so it’s more easily corrupted. What we should strive for is the middle way. Just the right amount of government.
- icebraining 9y ago
  > A small and limited government is a weak government. A weak government is susceptible to corruption. Why? Also, is that borne by history? Was the US federal government more corrupt when it was more limited?
- gwright 9y ago
  > A small and limited government is a weak government. A weak government is susceptible to corruption. Your assertion isn't self evident. A government could have great power within its defined scope of power and little power outside that scope. There is also a reasonable argument that as the scope and strength of government power increases so does the desire to corrupt and control that power. Which is more dangerous a corrupt but weak and limited government or a corrupt strong and expansive government?
- DSingularity 9y ago
  The integrity of a weak government is uninteresting. Let them be corrupt, what will they do? Reprimand you? If the government has power. If is an authority in the eyes of the people. In those cases we should care about the integrity of the government.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

cal5k 9y ago

The main thrust is that this seems to simply be a consequence of differing ability/circumstance, and there is no counter-example in recorded history - even our views on the "noble savage" are probably skewed by the fact that large hunter-gatherer societies with enough wealth to allow accumulation have been stamped out. The follow-on question is: what do we do about it? Attempts to artificially "correct" inequality for the sake of correction are universally disastrous. Progressive taxation and redistribution are, I think, reasonable, as is universal basic income, and sound government has a huge role to play. But the goal should be to provide basic services and create opportunity for the bottom 50%, not wrest control of wealth from the top 1%. The goal of actually stamping out inequality is a fool's errand.

wiz21c 9y ago
Fortunately, thanks to your solution, the basic services for the bottom 50% will make them no less free than slaves... (admittedly, history happens like that but it's been continually fought)

tdmule 9y ago

Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.

psyc 9y ago
I believe we are going to find it increasingly essential to view corporations as a second government that has a particular relationship with the nominal one.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  The key difference is that you can opt out of your relationship with one, but not the other. At least they tend to lock horns. To the extent that the two collaborate, we should be suspicious.
  - pohl 9y ago
    The choice of opting out only exists where competition exists. Without a government to keep corporations in check, your ability to opt out would evaporate.
    - gwright 9y ago
      And yet a powerful government is really good using its power to limit competition, discourage competitors, protect incumbents, and so on.
      - noobermin 9y ago
        A powerful government is also really good at using its power to increase competition, encourage competitors, protect new comers, and so on. And a powerful government in command of its people will do more of that.
        gwright 9y ago
        What government "power" is required to 'encourage competitors'? If there is business opportunity the market will attract participants all by itself without any need for government intervention. In my experience, government incentives are generally misguided and force mis-allocation of resources. That is to say the government is distorting the market to favor activity that wouldn't otherwise be attractive to a business.
        galvin 9y ago
        Net neutrality would be a good example.
theseatoms 9y ago
What sorts of instances of corporate control are you thinking of here? Most examples that come to my mind involve corporations wielding the power of the state over people.
- philipkglass 9y ago
  Control of mineral resources, for example. Mining and oil/gas companies are already some of the largest corporations in existence. These are capital-intensive businesses where small entities often can't survive market downturns. Small resource owners get acquired by bigger ones during periods of financial distress, or juniors pre-emptively try to join forces with established companies as soon as they have a proven project to develop. The "natural" tendency, in absence of limits imposed by states, would be to reap maximum economies of scale, control over pricing, and resilience to downturn by combining extractive businesses without limit. A handful of giant corporations could acquire a commanding position over every mineral commodity required by industrial civilization. OPEC could be a very effective price-setter indeed were it a transnational corporation with unified ownership. Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members. If you picture eliminating the state altogether, including its enforcement of property rights and contracts, then I concede that the powers attendant to wealth would no longer involve a de jure state. I think that the powers of concentrated wealth would remain nonetheless. Wealth would hire private guards to exclude others from their mines instead of using the law enforcement apparatus of a state, for example.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    > Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members. So, "competition"? Cartels in general are unstable because of these internal competitive forces. I get that corporations with large market share can set prices in the short term. But every resource has a substitute. Even oil. So even price-setters have to operate within limits or risk their power being marginalized. I am picturing the elimination of the state. And I agree that one can enforce his own property rights.

mpweiher 9y ago

Actually, government is generally a limiting factor on the power of wealth, just like it is a limiting factor of the power of violence etc. That's kind of why we have governments. Now of course wealth tries to subvert that, and particularly in the anglo-saxon countries, the US first among them, it has been particularly successful.

adamlett 9y ago

The government is a small part of the state. The police and armed forces are part of the state, and can be corrupted, even if the government is impotent. All the individual rights and guarantees in the world are of no help to you, if the generals or police chiefs are corrupt.

hippich 9y ago
that is really funny mistype :)) makes one think... :)

xapata 9y ago

Capital concentration increases the impact of capital mis-allocation. A market economy is more efficient than a command economy. A market with only one capitalist is a de facto command economy.

audunw 9y ago

A small and limited government is a weak government. A weak government is susceptible to corruption. To avoid corruption you need the state and the collection of the most powerful corporate/private actors be of similar size, and they must be as isolated and independent as possible. This way you get a balance of power, rather than one corrupting the other. The problem in the US is the isolation/independence part. Money in politics and revolving doors has corrupted the balance. “Limited government” is an idea sold by people who want government to be weaker so it’s more easily corrupted. What we should strive for is the middle way. Just the right amount of government.

icebraining 9y ago
> A small and limited government is a weak government. A weak government is susceptible to corruption. Why? Also, is that borne by history? Was the US federal government more corrupt when it was more limited?
gwright 9y ago
> A small and limited government is a weak government. A weak government is susceptible to corruption. Your assertion isn't self evident. A government could have great power within its defined scope of power and little power outside that scope. There is also a reasonable argument that as the scope and strength of government power increases so does the desire to corrupt and control that power. Which is more dangerous a corrupt but weak and limited government or a corrupt strong and expansive government?
DSingularity 9y ago
The integrity of a weak government is uninteresting. Let them be corrupt, what will they do? Reprimand you? If the government has power. If is an authority in the eyes of the people. In those cases we should care about the integrity of the government.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]