7 ms·

And it means that that accountability is worth less. The argument goes the same way against big corporations - the more difficult they are to control, and it's

And it means that that accountability is worth less. The argument goes the same way against big corporations - the more difficult they are to control, and it's easier to conceal corruption. A small government breeds free corporations - free to grind their employees to a pulp in the company towns of not so long ago, free to send thugs to the ballot box to make sure you vote for the right person, free to pay you in company dollars only and then gouge you in the company store.

zozbot123 8y ago
> ... free to grind their employees to a pulp in the company towns of not so long ago, free to send thugs to the ballot box to make sure you vote for the right person, free to pay you in company dollars only and then gouge you in the company store. Ah, but who's more likely to do these things? Free corporations that must vigorously compete against any new upstarts, or corrupt ones led by government cronies, that can easily erect a convenient "moat" against competition, fully supported by government coercion? Hint: look at which countries do these things in practice. It's not the "small government", economically free ones.
- ppseafield 8y ago
  > Ah, but who's more likely to do these things? Look no further than the United States and its historical relationship with labor and corporations (when its government was much smaller), for the reasons you just quoted. I'm not saying "big government" guarantees the opposite, but corporations have already shown us what they will do with less restrictions and oversight. They'll fill spice cans with dust and sell it as black pepper. They'll penalize break time so heavily that workers will have to defecate where they stand in the sausage plant. They'll pay as little as possible and almost-starve their employees so that they have no energy or resources to do anything except continue working.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    There was a time when the United States government was smaller, sure, but the country was also a lot poorer back then. And for all the poor treatment of workers that was supposedly going on, the U.S. still attracted plenty of "dirt-poor and ugly" immigrants from all over the Western world! Can't really say the same about "big-government" countries at a similar level of wealth today.
    - ppseafield 8y ago
      > the country was also a lot poorer back then. So was the rest of the world, especially for those not in power. > U.S. still attracted plenty of "dirt-poor and ugly" immigrants from all over the Western world True, but also many folks' options weren't exactly great in comparison. > Can't really say the same about "big-government" countries at a similar level of wealth today. Germany, the Scandinavian countries for instance is an often-desired place for immigrants. The US is still a very desirable place for immigrants, even though the size of the government has grown.
    - dgzl 8y ago
      The United States literally kicked off the transformation to the new world. We started as slaves to the crown, overthrew that tyrannical presence, and then created the most liberating government framework to date. Then we slipped back into high taxes and oppressive regulations. (Not saying all taxes and regulations are bad)
dgzl 8y ago
On the contrary, I think it makes accountability more valuable. If citizens had a beef, and protesting was as easy as finding the handful of people who are in charge, then people would be more inclined. However when the government is so big and becomes secretive, then accountability becomes more than a chore, and eventually futile. You make it seem like when government is small, that there isn't Justice. That's entirely mistaken. The court system will still work without authoritative government control in every aspect of our lives. In fact, I believe it would work better. Take for example the secret FISA court. That's not something that's created from a small representative government, that's created from a government that became so big and unchecked that it can do what it wants, regardless of human rights or the Constitution. Corporations come and go like docker containers, and we have a choice to do business with them. We literally have no choice with our government.
- ppseafield 8y ago
  > I think it makes accountability more valuable. If citizens had a beef, and protesting was as easy as finding the handful of people who are in charge, then people would be more inclined. Except that if that small group of people has less actual power, protesting to them can only produce less of an effect. And that they have less power means they will be less likely to cause the problems, but.. > However when the government is so big and becomes secretive, then accountability becomes more than a chore, and eventually futile. I don't see how corporations are exempt from this pattern either. > You make it seem like when government is small, that there isn't Justice. That's entirely mistaken. The court system will still work without authoritative government control in every aspect of our lives. How and where do you effectively bring forth grievances when the trouble is that your employer is only paying you enough to go to work the next day? > Take for example the secret FISA court. The FISA court is a bad example here because it doesn't reflect the context of what I think we're discussing, namely regulations, and more specifically corporate regulations. The FISA court doesn't regulate anything. > You make it seem like when government is small, that there isn't Justice. My main point is simply that when regulations are minimal, citizens have virtually no recourse against the power-consolidated megacorporations that run their lives. > Corporations come and go like docker containers, ... Many do, but the ones that exert the most control over people are the really big corporations, some having been around a century or more. These are the corporations for which we need regulation; the companies that go out of business in a year don't have an effect on nearly as many people. > and we have a choice to do business with them. Not exactly true. You could possibly avoid using private banks for payment processing (credit/debit cards), but you'd have to pay cash for everything or write checks. Not all businesses take those, and most online stores take neither. Cable companies have created de-facto monopolies in many places in the US based on your location. People "can move" to another location, but you will most likely end up in the same situation. > We literally have no choice with our government. Well, not exactly. We vote in representatives, we can change our laws and amend the constitution. Also, in the same way that we can "choose" to avoid some companies, you can move to a different one.

zozbot123 8y ago

> ... free to grind their employees to a pulp in the company towns of not so long ago, free to send thugs to the ballot box to make sure you vote for the right person, free to pay you in company dollars only and then gouge you in the company store. Ah, but who's more likely to do these things? Free corporations that must vigorously compete against any new upstarts, or corrupt ones led by government cronies, that can easily erect a convenient "moat" against competition, fully supported by government coercion? Hint: look at which countries do these things in practice. It's not the "small government", economically free ones.

ppseafield 8y ago
> Ah, but who's more likely to do these things? Look no further than the United States and its historical relationship with labor and corporations (when its government was much smaller), for the reasons you just quoted. I'm not saying "big government" guarantees the opposite, but corporations have already shown us what they will do with less restrictions and oversight. They'll fill spice cans with dust and sell it as black pepper. They'll penalize break time so heavily that workers will have to defecate where they stand in the sausage plant. They'll pay as little as possible and almost-starve their employees so that they have no energy or resources to do anything except continue working.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  There was a time when the United States government was smaller, sure, but the country was also a lot poorer back then. And for all the poor treatment of workers that was supposedly going on, the U.S. still attracted plenty of "dirt-poor and ugly" immigrants from all over the Western world! Can't really say the same about "big-government" countries at a similar level of wealth today.
  - ppseafield 8y ago
    > the country was also a lot poorer back then. So was the rest of the world, especially for those not in power. > U.S. still attracted plenty of "dirt-poor and ugly" immigrants from all over the Western world True, but also many folks' options weren't exactly great in comparison. > Can't really say the same about "big-government" countries at a similar level of wealth today. Germany, the Scandinavian countries for instance is an often-desired place for immigrants. The US is still a very desirable place for immigrants, even though the size of the government has grown.
  - dgzl 8y ago
    The United States literally kicked off the transformation to the new world. We started as slaves to the crown, overthrew that tyrannical presence, and then created the most liberating government framework to date. Then we slipped back into high taxes and oppressive regulations. (Not saying all taxes and regulations are bad)

dgzl 8y ago

On the contrary, I think it makes accountability more valuable. If citizens had a beef, and protesting was as easy as finding the handful of people who are in charge, then people would be more inclined. However when the government is so big and becomes secretive, then accountability becomes more than a chore, and eventually futile. You make it seem like when government is small, that there isn't Justice. That's entirely mistaken. The court system will still work without authoritative government control in every aspect of our lives. In fact, I believe it would work better. Take for example the secret FISA court. That's not something that's created from a small representative government, that's created from a government that became so big and unchecked that it can do what it wants, regardless of human rights or the Constitution. Corporations come and go like docker containers, and we have a choice to do business with them. We literally have no choice with our government.

ppseafield 8y ago
> I think it makes accountability more valuable. If citizens had a beef, and protesting was as easy as finding the handful of people who are in charge, then people would be more inclined. Except that if that small group of people has less actual power, protesting to them can only produce less of an effect. And that they have less power means they will be less likely to cause the problems, but.. > However when the government is so big and becomes secretive, then accountability becomes more than a chore, and eventually futile. I don't see how corporations are exempt from this pattern either. > You make it seem like when government is small, that there isn't Justice. That's entirely mistaken. The court system will still work without authoritative government control in every aspect of our lives. How and where do you effectively bring forth grievances when the trouble is that your employer is only paying you enough to go to work the next day? > Take for example the secret FISA court. The FISA court is a bad example here because it doesn't reflect the context of what I think we're discussing, namely regulations, and more specifically corporate regulations. The FISA court doesn't regulate anything. > You make it seem like when government is small, that there isn't Justice. My main point is simply that when regulations are minimal, citizens have virtually no recourse against the power-consolidated megacorporations that run their lives. > Corporations come and go like docker containers, ... Many do, but the ones that exert the most control over people are the really big corporations, some having been around a century or more. These are the corporations for which we need regulation; the companies that go out of business in a year don't have an effect on nearly as many people. > and we have a choice to do business with them. Not exactly true. You could possibly avoid using private banks for payment processing (credit/debit cards), but you'd have to pay cash for everything or write checks. Not all businesses take those, and most online stores take neither. Cable companies have created de-facto monopolies in many places in the US based on your location. People "can move" to another location, but you will most likely end up in the same situation. > We literally have no choice with our government. Well, not exactly. We vote in representatives, we can change our laws and amend the constitution. Also, in the same way that we can "choose" to avoid some companies, you can move to a different one.