4 ms·

The question you're asking depends on the formulation of the problem you're trying to solve and who is best suited to efficiently solve that problem under limit

by nyxtom 7y ago

The question you're asking depends on the formulation of the problem you're trying to solve and who is best suited to efficiently solve that problem under limited resources and constraints. It depends on what you're trying to solve, and who is most capable of solving that problem efficiently. Sometimes this is a public/private partnership/solution where the govt provides the right/or sometimes wrong incentives for the market. Sometimes it's too much regulation, sometimes it's govt over-dependence, sometimes it works out as supplemental where the govt picks up where the market is non-existent.

claudiawerner 7y ago
True, it does depend on "what", but a question of trust doesn't relate to "what"; I think one either trusts the government to regulate a certain "what", at least potentially (this is true for most people), or one doesn't trust the government at all (anarchists). So the argument that the government can't be trusted should be better reformulated as saying that the government can potentially be trusted - that potential manifests itself in its successes in food regulation, for instance. But it also removes the force of the argument, because now the non-anarchist has to answer why the government can be trusted on some things but not others. I haven't seen the justification that here's anything that makes the Internet (or, more broadly, speech) particularly special.
- nyxtom 7y ago
  I prefer much to lean on the evidence than the potential of trust. Where govt is effective at regulation as a result of public and private agreed upon standards, I have a hard time extending this beyond that (apart from areas where govt has proven to be better at funneling resources to the right places, to a fault), it is not the same as arguing wholesale for blanket trust. One example is not evidence that one should be blind fully trustful of an entity (who at plenty of occasions) has also broken that trust with mass warrantless surveillance (issue of broken trust) Or in other cases where the welfare system itself has produced artificial disincentives to get higher paying work (issue of trust due to inefficiencies or failure of common goods) Thoughtful discussions aside, the people most suited to both care about and solve the problem set are the ones I would most likely lean on. This isn’t necessarily an anarchist position, it’s one of cautious skepticism over blanket trust without industry specific evidence to prove that the govt is in fact better at handling time, money, and increasingly efficient gains. I haven’t seen a lot of evidence to prove that the govt is particularly good at handling the first two. That all being said, I don’t see it as an all or nothing. Follow the evidence and the data.

by nyxtom 7y ago

claudiawerner 7y ago

True, it does depend on "what", but a question of trust doesn't relate to "what"; I think one either trusts the government to regulate a certain "what", at least potentially (this is true for most people), or one doesn't trust the government at all (anarchists). So the argument that the government can't be trusted should be better reformulated as saying that the government can potentially be trusted - that potential manifests itself in its successes in food regulation, for instance. But it also removes the force of the argument, because now the non-anarchist has to answer why the government can be trusted on some things but not others. I haven't seen the justification that here's anything that makes the Internet (or, more broadly, speech) particularly special.

nyxtom 7y ago
I prefer much to lean on the evidence than the potential of trust. Where govt is effective at regulation as a result of public and private agreed upon standards, I have a hard time extending this beyond that (apart from areas where govt has proven to be better at funneling resources to the right places, to a fault), it is not the same as arguing wholesale for blanket trust. One example is not evidence that one should be blind fully trustful of an entity (who at plenty of occasions) has also broken that trust with mass warrantless surveillance (issue of broken trust) Or in other cases where the welfare system itself has produced artificial disincentives to get higher paying work (issue of trust due to inefficiencies or failure of common goods) Thoughtful discussions aside, the people most suited to both care about and solve the problem set are the ones I would most likely lean on. This isn’t necessarily an anarchist position, it’s one of cautious skepticism over blanket trust without industry specific evidence to prove that the govt is in fact better at handling time, money, and increasingly efficient gains. I haven’t seen a lot of evidence to prove that the govt is particularly good at handling the first two. That all being said, I don’t see it as an all or nothing. Follow the evidence and the data.