5 ms·

I think the key flaw in these types of efforts is they ignore the long term success of the democratic process. It feels like once they get a foothold through th

I think the key flaw in these types of efforts is they ignore the long term success of the democratic process. It feels like once they get a foothold through the existing government bodies, the goal is to largely replace them with their own vision. But how will the people in the community control their own destiny in the long term? Governance seems to be an afterthought. You have to give up a little control, but everyone benefits. Alphabet wouldn't exist without the system that gave rise to it, why kill the golden goose?

digitaltrees 6y ago
Totally agree. But a generation or two of vilifying governments has eroded any respect for how amazing our government is and all it does right. I will also say it’s easy to forget how the right to have a say through democratic accountability shapes policy and culture. People love to think of companies as more innovative than government but that’s often because they aren’t accountable to as many constituents so they can act according to more narrow incentives.
- unishark 6y ago
  The key difference between companies and government is the latter still is a monopoly, even if you get a vote to choose which monopoly takes control. Companies can innovate and provide alternatives for me without them having to become the market leader first. People have proposed ideas for competing governments operating in the same region in this way. Basically you could opt out of the Google services and use the Apple services instead. Or maybe go with the scrappy GNU open-source services.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    Government is not a monopoly. There are many governments. Besides sovereign countries there are regional and local divisions. Often also branches with separate powers. While not quite the same competition as companies there is certainly competition and checks and balances such that typical monopoly analysis is not really suitable.
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      Of course, for the majority of people, moving country is generally impossible. Borders are a thing.
    - unishark 6y ago
      That kind of alternatives help some. But then by that logic, nothing is a monopoly. Your local utility is considered a protected monopoly according to the law, even if they don't also control prices across the border in some other country. Governments explicitly claim the right to exclude "competitors" from whatever they do choose to define as their jurisdiction. If a state and federal govt disagree (e.g. drug laws) that just means you must adhere to the worst of both alternatives to avoid penalties.
    - staticautomatic 6y ago
      This is exactly wrong. In political theory, the defining characteristic of a government is that it has a monopoly on the use of force (and accordingly on anything over which it exercises that force).
      - digitaltrees 6y ago
        But there isn’t one government in most of America. Federal, state, and local governments have overlapping jurisdiction. There are entire bodies of law devoted to resolving this competition. And this competition between agencies changes the law and internal culture of law enforcement organizations. You don’t think the local sheriff will think twice about over stepping if the FBI takes their cases or punished them for over reach? An abstract principle in political theory for the sake of debate isn’t an infallible axiom. Yes the sovereign, as in all the units of government taken as a whole have exclusive rights to violent force, but in practice, most sovereigns subdivide that right in competing bodies to create checks and balances and place the nexus of decision making in the right sphere of influence (some problems need to be addressed at the local level like waste water management, others at the federal level like interstate commerce).
        staticautomatic 6y ago
throwaway2048 6y ago
Corporations are normally fundamentally autocratic institutions from top to bottom (your boss has absolute say, and if you oppose it, you are liable to be fired on the spot). Its extremely concerning how many people just accept this as some fundamental fact of life. All sidewalk labs is, is an extension of that principle onto general government.
- mleonhard 6y ago
  Fascism.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  This is a totally ignored point. Thank you for pointing it out. Why libertarianism would prefer private dictators to democracy, even if it’s a monopoly, in the pursuit of individual liberty is strange.

digitaltrees 6y ago

Totally agree. But a generation or two of vilifying governments has eroded any respect for how amazing our government is and all it does right. I will also say it’s easy to forget how the right to have a say through democratic accountability shapes policy and culture. People love to think of companies as more innovative than government but that’s often because they aren’t accountable to as many constituents so they can act according to more narrow incentives.

unishark 6y ago
The key difference between companies and government is the latter still is a monopoly, even if you get a vote to choose which monopoly takes control. Companies can innovate and provide alternatives for me without them having to become the market leader first. People have proposed ideas for competing governments operating in the same region in this way. Basically you could opt out of the Google services and use the Apple services instead. Or maybe go with the scrappy GNU open-source services.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  Government is not a monopoly. There are many governments. Besides sovereign countries there are regional and local divisions. Often also branches with separate powers. While not quite the same competition as companies there is certainly competition and checks and balances such that typical monopoly analysis is not really suitable.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    Of course, for the majority of people, moving country is generally impossible. Borders are a thing.
  - unishark 6y ago
    That kind of alternatives help some. But then by that logic, nothing is a monopoly. Your local utility is considered a protected monopoly according to the law, even if they don't also control prices across the border in some other country. Governments explicitly claim the right to exclude "competitors" from whatever they do choose to define as their jurisdiction. If a state and federal govt disagree (e.g. drug laws) that just means you must adhere to the worst of both alternatives to avoid penalties.
  - staticautomatic 6y ago
    This is exactly wrong. In political theory, the defining characteristic of a government is that it has a monopoly on the use of force (and accordingly on anything over which it exercises that force).
    - digitaltrees 6y ago
      But there isn’t one government in most of America. Federal, state, and local governments have overlapping jurisdiction. There are entire bodies of law devoted to resolving this competition. And this competition between agencies changes the law and internal culture of law enforcement organizations. You don’t think the local sheriff will think twice about over stepping if the FBI takes their cases or punished them for over reach? An abstract principle in political theory for the sake of debate isn’t an infallible axiom. Yes the sovereign, as in all the units of government taken as a whole have exclusive rights to violent force, but in practice, most sovereigns subdivide that right in competing bodies to create checks and balances and place the nexus of decision making in the right sphere of influence (some problems need to be addressed at the local level like waste water management, others at the federal level like interstate commerce).
      - staticautomatic 6y ago

throwaway2048 6y ago

Corporations are normally fundamentally autocratic institutions from top to bottom (your boss has absolute say, and if you oppose it, you are liable to be fired on the spot). Its extremely concerning how many people just accept this as some fundamental fact of life. All sidewalk labs is, is an extension of that principle onto general government.

mleonhard 6y ago
Fascism.
digitaltrees 6y ago
This is a totally ignored point. Thank you for pointing it out. Why libertarianism would prefer private dictators to democracy, even if it’s a monopoly, in the pursuit of individual liberty is strange.