3 ms·

Largely, yes. What people fail to inject is that, in a Democratic society, government is an expression of the will of the people. Now, there's certainly been so

Largely, yes. What people fail to inject is that, in a Democratic society, government is an expression of the will of the people. Now, there's certainly been some corruption of that ideal, however that is the design. So, with this in mind, the idea that we should diminish government begs the question, "and replace it with what?" Because via massive wealth, control of resources, and other power someone will "rule over us". We see this now with money in politics. They've already chipped away much of the people's claim to government. Still, democratic governments are our collective opportunity to be the ones who rule over ourselves. In that light, having a government that provides the basic neccessities that allow for liberty and the pursuit of happiness should not be considered scary. And, it does not come at the expense of freedom, as some claim. The contrary, actually. So, these arguments about social support being communist, scary, or somehow antithetical to capitalism are misguided. Likewise, when we point out problems with government, such as unjust deaths, etc, these are problems with implementation that need correction. But, some use them as an argument that the government has too much power. The danger of conflating these is that it can lead to people advocating against their own best interests and diminishing their own voices. This is not to say the government should have unlimited power, or even that it doesn't currently have too much power in some cases. Instead, it's to separate the issues. For instance, in all cases where the govt doesn't live up to expectations, is it because it has too much power? Or, is it sometimes the case that it's simply working for too few people or poorly implemented? In any case, I agree that we need new metrics for assessing the value of businesses. A system that places only profits at its center will invariably depart from the broader social good.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
“ Because via massive wealth, control of resources, and other power someone will ‘rule over us’. We see this now with money in politics. They've already chipped away much of the people's claim to government.” I guess I don’t believe this accounting of the story. At least not for the United States. I don’t see it as “we used to have democracy but corruption has tarnished it”. The USA wasn’t founded on democracy in reality - women and people of color couldn’t vote, and it went on like that for 140+ years. It seems very powerful men ruled the country for a long time. What bit of democracy won by the people has been resisted by the state, and still powerful interests rule. Also I think you are saying that if the government doesn’t rule us the wealthy will. Well I think we need to resist all attempts at rule from above. I’d rather focus on bottom-up solutions to bring power to the people. The state is a big awkward tool and I think it has its place, but think of Wikipedia bringing free knowledge to all - that doesn’t rely on the state. How can we make our whole economy like that?
- unclebucknasty 6y ago
  All valid points. We have certainly never perfected this union. But we have been in different places and at different degrees over time. Of late, I think capture by special interests as an expressed ethos has escalated with regard to modern history. It's an active turn away from even those ideals. Citizens United and all that. But, here, I am speaking more about the ideal. And regardless of what we do at the grassroots level, there will need to be some degree of societal organization to provide for common welfare, safety, enforce rights, etc. Even at its minimum, it becomes a powerful enterprise. We need to ensure we control that, if for no other reason than that power begets more power and we're back to where we started. To a very real degree those powerful interests you mentioned want us to give up on this government project. I do agree, however, that the state is a "big awkward tool" in its current incarnation. I just argue that it's worthwhile to improve it versus abandon it. >How can we make our whole economy like that? It starts with finding enough like-minded people who are willing to do some work. And that starts with a vision that people can connect with. But one big challenge is the current design makes it such that so many people are concerned with subsistence, they have little time for creating change. So there's a chicken and egg problem there.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago

“ Because via massive wealth, control of resources, and other power someone will ‘rule over us’. We see this now with money in politics. They've already chipped away much of the people's claim to government.” I guess I don’t believe this accounting of the story. At least not for the United States. I don’t see it as “we used to have democracy but corruption has tarnished it”. The USA wasn’t founded on democracy in reality - women and people of color couldn’t vote, and it went on like that for 140+ years. It seems very powerful men ruled the country for a long time. What bit of democracy won by the people has been resisted by the state, and still powerful interests rule. Also I think you are saying that if the government doesn’t rule us the wealthy will. Well I think we need to resist all attempts at rule from above. I’d rather focus on bottom-up solutions to bring power to the people. The state is a big awkward tool and I think it has its place, but think of Wikipedia bringing free knowledge to all - that doesn’t rely on the state. How can we make our whole economy like that?

unclebucknasty 6y ago
All valid points. We have certainly never perfected this union. But we have been in different places and at different degrees over time. Of late, I think capture by special interests as an expressed ethos has escalated with regard to modern history. It's an active turn away from even those ideals. Citizens United and all that. But, here, I am speaking more about the ideal. And regardless of what we do at the grassroots level, there will need to be some degree of societal organization to provide for common welfare, safety, enforce rights, etc. Even at its minimum, it becomes a powerful enterprise. We need to ensure we control that, if for no other reason than that power begets more power and we're back to where we started. To a very real degree those powerful interests you mentioned want us to give up on this government project. I do agree, however, that the state is a "big awkward tool" in its current incarnation. I just argue that it's worthwhile to improve it versus abandon it. >How can we make our whole economy like that? It starts with finding enough like-minded people who are willing to do some work. And that starts with a vision that people can connect with. But one big challenge is the current design makes it such that so many people are concerned with subsistence, they have little time for creating change. So there's a chicken and egg problem there.