4 ms·

I'm definitely not pro-government. I want power to be in the hands of individuals, not any centralized entity. The problem is, if you don't have a powerful gov

I'm definitely not pro-government. I want power to be in the hands of individuals, not any centralized entity. The problem is, if you don't have a powerful government, you get something worse: powerful corporations. At least government (in a democracy) has to maintain some pretense of serving individuals. The only times corporations have to pretend to serve individuals is if their customers are individuals, and even then they can just lie about it: the whole field of advertising is devoted to that. Governments can (and do) lie about serving people too, but they have it a bit harder: consider the difference in connotation between the words "advertising" and "propaganda". And in an ideal government, there's a great deal of transparency, which makes it harder to lie. In contrast, corporations have largely unquestioned active protections over their internal secrets, and corporate transparency is practically oxymoronic. The role of government is to protect the weak from the strong, and in order to do that, unfortunately, government has to be strong. In this context, that means regulating corporations so that they can't trample individuals. Ideally, government also has checks and balances so that government also protects individuals from government. Obviously that's hard to do, and no government I know of has implemented it perfectly, but it's the best idea we have--if you have a better idea feel free to share it. And so we're clear: having an anemic government isn't a better idea: that just gives you rule by corporations.

scarface74 7y ago
The role of government is to protect the weak from the strong, and in order to do that, unfortunately, government has to be strong. Have you read about the history of the US? Segregation? Laws against interracial marriage? “Sodomy” laws to persecute homosexuality? The Mulliford Act? Historically the US has only “protected” the majority. The same is true today if you look where the “War on Drugs” is taking place compared to “treating drug addiction like a disease” is taking place. “Powerful corporations” can’t take away your liberty or your property.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > > The role of government is to protect the weak from the strong, and in order to do that, unfortunately, government has to be strong. > Have you read about the history of the US? Segregation? Laws against interracial marriage? “Sodomy” laws to persecute homosexuality? The Mulliford Act? Government often does terrible things outside their role, a fact which I clearly acknowledged as a problem in my post. > Historically the US has only “protected” the majority. The same is true today if you look where the “War on Drugs” is taking place compared to “treating drug addiction like a disease” is taking place. The US is also one of the worst examples of a government. I think if you look at where addiction is being treated as a disease in other parts of the world, you'll find that those places have pretty powerful governments. > “Powerful corporations” can’t take away your liberty or your property. They can't take your liberty away because government says kidnapping is illegal. Corporations absolutely take away people's liberty when it's legal to do so: corporate prisons, mercenary corps, etc. In the past, when slavery was legal, it was corporations who obtained, sold, and often kept slaves. I would argue that buying up all the property, paying you a pittance, and forcing you to pay rent, so that you can't obtain property in the first place, isn't meaningfully different from taking away your property.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    The US is also one of the worst examples of a government. Since Amazon is a US based corporation it should be controlled by the “worst example of government”?
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      Yes, I want the US government to improve and stop being one of the worst examples of government. Is there something controversial about that? Part of that improvement is fulfilling their role, and refocusing on protecting individuals from corporations, which includes protecting workers at Amazon.
einpoklum 7y ago
> The role of government is to protect the weak from the strong The role of government is to maintain the social order, the basic social relations w.r.t. ownership of property, particularly capital like land, production facilities, access to natural resources etc. This means mostly protecting the interests of the strong few against the weak many. In some cases of misconduct by powerful individuals or companies - outside the bounds of the acceptable and resulting in potential jeopardy of the social order - it may protect the weak against the powerful as well.
- scarface74 7y ago
  How has the government protecting the weak and minorities worked out - during the entire history of the US? In the US “it’s not the strong few”. The majority can and does use the government to impose its will.
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    That's like saying the wind imposes its will on a sailing ship. It's not entirely false, in the sense that the ship only goes in a direction that's not upwind, but - the ship uses the sail angle to take angled directions to that of the wind, or just furls up the sails - and eventually goes where the people sailing it want to. I hope the simile is clear enough... Specifically - persecution of minorities is not a "natural" social phenomenon, it is very much an acquired tendency on the personal level and encouraged and stoked by social, economical, and political institutions.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      It doesn’t matter why it happens. The fact is it does happen by the same political institutions that people want to give more power to.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        Do you actually want to go back to the days of companies beating workers when they collapse partway through a 13 hour day and paying them in store credit? Or can you agree that giving government the power to make those things illegal was a good idea?

scarface74 7y ago

The role of government is to protect the weak from the strong, and in order to do that, unfortunately, government has to be strong. Have you read about the history of the US? Segregation? Laws against interracial marriage? “Sodomy” laws to persecute homosexuality? The Mulliford Act? Historically the US has only “protected” the majority. The same is true today if you look where the “War on Drugs” is taking place compared to “treating drug addiction like a disease” is taking place. “Powerful corporations” can’t take away your liberty or your property.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> > The role of government is to protect the weak from the strong, and in order to do that, unfortunately, government has to be strong. > Have you read about the history of the US? Segregation? Laws against interracial marriage? “Sodomy” laws to persecute homosexuality? The Mulliford Act? Government often does terrible things outside their role, a fact which I clearly acknowledged as a problem in my post. > Historically the US has only “protected” the majority. The same is true today if you look where the “War on Drugs” is taking place compared to “treating drug addiction like a disease” is taking place. The US is also one of the worst examples of a government. I think if you look at where addiction is being treated as a disease in other parts of the world, you'll find that those places have pretty powerful governments. > “Powerful corporations” can’t take away your liberty or your property. They can't take your liberty away because government says kidnapping is illegal. Corporations absolutely take away people's liberty when it's legal to do so: corporate prisons, mercenary corps, etc. In the past, when slavery was legal, it was corporations who obtained, sold, and often kept slaves. I would argue that buying up all the property, paying you a pittance, and forcing you to pay rent, so that you can't obtain property in the first place, isn't meaningfully different from taking away your property.
- scarface74 7y ago
  The US is also one of the worst examples of a government. Since Amazon is a US based corporation it should be controlled by the “worst example of government”?
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    Yes, I want the US government to improve and stop being one of the worst examples of government. Is there something controversial about that? Part of that improvement is fulfilling their role, and refocusing on protecting individuals from corporations, which includes protecting workers at Amazon.

einpoklum 7y ago

> The role of government is to protect the weak from the strong The role of government is to maintain the social order, the basic social relations w.r.t. ownership of property, particularly capital like land, production facilities, access to natural resources etc. This means mostly protecting the interests of the strong few against the weak many. In some cases of misconduct by powerful individuals or companies - outside the bounds of the acceptable and resulting in potential jeopardy of the social order - it may protect the weak against the powerful as well.

scarface74 7y ago
How has the government protecting the weak and minorities worked out - during the entire history of the US? In the US “it’s not the strong few”. The majority can and does use the government to impose its will.
- einpoklum 7y ago
  That's like saying the wind imposes its will on a sailing ship. It's not entirely false, in the sense that the ship only goes in a direction that's not upwind, but - the ship uses the sail angle to take angled directions to that of the wind, or just furls up the sails - and eventually goes where the people sailing it want to. I hope the simile is clear enough... Specifically - persecution of minorities is not a "natural" social phenomenon, it is very much an acquired tendency on the personal level and encouraged and stoked by social, economical, and political institutions.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    It doesn’t matter why it happens. The fact is it does happen by the same political institutions that people want to give more power to.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      Do you actually want to go back to the days of companies beating workers when they collapse partway through a 13 hour day and paying them in store credit? Or can you agree that giving government the power to make those things illegal was a good idea?