6 ms·

What if, and this is a crazy idea. We allowed people to form Governments instead of corporations that have a history of psychopathic behavior. I am pretty pro-

by hpoe 6y ago

What if, and this is a crazy idea. We allowed people to form Governments instead of corporations that have a history of psychopathic behavior. I am pretty pro-business and for small government but I think this is a bad idea all around. Why do we need this in the fist place? What is wrong with the old model of people getting together and agreeing to form their own government, why do companies need to be involved in the first place?

gjsman-1000 6y ago
"We allowed people to form Governments instead of corporations that have a history of psychopathic behavior." On a flip note, are governments not known to also have a history of psychopathic behavior?
- nr2x 6y ago
  You get what you give.
  - gjsman-1000 6y ago
    And on that note, is there any entity that has power that does not have a history of psychopathic behavior? Psychopathic behavior just comes with power, it seems.
    - nr2x 6y ago
      Yes, but complaining about “the government” in a functioning democracy* is just complaining about fellow citizens. Making “the government” into some exogenous monolith makes no sense. * Local conditions may vary, contact your local election official for details on gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, and voter suppression. Offer may not be available in all areas.
    - nix23 6y ago
      >Psychopathic behavior just comes with power, it seems. It's the opposite, psychopath are attracted by power.
      - benjohnson 6y ago
        I recognize in myself that power corrupts me. For example, now that I’m rich - I don’t see the poor as being equal to me. Instead of serving them, I just write a check.
        4b11b4 6y ago
        I can already feel the greed from the relatively small amount of money I have made in a recently short amount of time. I want more. and I'm even planning to turn over all of my assets into a non profit in 3 years. But I can still feel the greed.
        nix23 6y ago
        A psychopath is not corrupted but sick...that's a big difference. Maybe your are both (a psychopath and corrupt) but for one of those points you aren't responsible (the sickness NOT the possible actions).
        benjohnson 6y ago
        Please keep your diagnosis to yourself - it will benefit you and those who love you. I have never met anybody else who was wealthy or powerful deny that temptation is there - historic literature is rife with the same sentiment.
        nix23 6y ago
        You understand what maybe means? BTW you are borderline: I wrote: It's the opposite, psychopath are attracted by power. Your Answer: >I recognize in myself that power corrupts me. For example, now that I’m rich - I don’t see the poor as being equal to me. I'm rich others are poor, right out of consent just to tell others your are rich (show your power) but actually not a bad person (manipulate). then: >Please keep your diagnosis to yourself - it will benefit you and those who love you. "Please keep your diagnosis to yourself - it will benefit you and" again a threat or show your power "those who love you" but i am actually not a bad person, that ticktok from threat to manipulation is the exact pattern of a psychopath. >I have never met anybody else who was wealthy or powerful deny that temptation is there - historic literature is rife with the same sentiment. No one said anything against that. And again "never met anybody else who was wealthy or powerful deny that temptation is there" i know lots of powerful people. "historic literature is rife with the same sentiment" i am so powerful i should compare myself to historic literature.
- refurb 6y ago
  Indeed. What is often ascribed to organizations or systems is often just a human tendency. Communism or capitalism, you see human faults in both.
- ryanbrunner 6y ago
  There have absolutely been governments that (if they were a person) exhibited psychopathic behaviour. Corporations are nearly by definition going to exhibit psychopathic behaviour, simply because acting in the interests of their workers or other people can legally only happen if it's compatible with the interest of shareholders. A government is at least capable of acting in the interests of its citizens, even if it doesn't always do that.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  What NV is doing is a "company town" on a larger scale. If you look up company towns, their level of corruption make the mafia look like saints. People formed gov is no where perfect, but it's a fuckton better than company formed govs.
sneak 6y ago
Governments have way more of a history of psychopathic violence than corporations, on the order of 100-1000x more deaths in our recorded history. Corporations aren't (generally) permitted to directly engage in violence. The defining characteristic of a government that distinguishes it from all other groups of people is that it claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
- gjsman-1000 6y ago
  Actually, if you include all wars that have occurred from government in history, I'd say the number of deaths compared to corporations is a much higher multiple than that.
  - ryanbrunner 6y ago
    I think it's an interesting question to consider how much of that is due to corporations being legally constrained from the sorts of violence governments engage in, particularly in a thread discussing relaxing legal constraints on corporations. If corporations were sovereign, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they participated in comparable levels of violence.
    - acdha 6y ago
      The East India Company would be a good supporting example or, more recently, United Fruit Company giving the world the term “banana republic”. I think the corporation versus government phrasing is obscuring the underlying problem of power without accountability to the people. That’s going to end poorly no matter the exact relationship between the private and public sectors.
- patcon 6y ago
  Let's be careful not to conflate "any aggression" with "psychopathic violence". The values at clash in past conflict are sometimes very human values, rather than manifestations of psychopathic anti-social mechanisms. (safe example: USA joining war against Germany) Though I'm sure the complexities of conflict make for a mixed bag of such overlapping actors and rationales...! I'm prepared to walk this thought back btw.
SllX 6y ago
The most recent municipal corporation formed in Nevada was in 2001. I think California has some more recent ones than that. People form governments all the damn time, most often municipal corporations. I’m not a fan of this new wave of interest in company towns, but the worst aspect of them was company scrip and that was outlawed by Congress. Still, cities are an emergent phenomenon, cities that you can call cities and not just cities on paper. You can’t plant a few skyscrapers in the ground and call it a day.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Even if it technically is, some apartment buildings, offices, restaurants, and stores in an existing industrial park is not a city in any meaningful sense. And throwing a dart at a map of Nevada and building a city for 100K people on the premise of "if you build it they will come" would almost certainly be a hilarious failure even if some billionaire felt his cash burning a hole in his pocket.
  - SllX 6y ago
    I agree.
Trufa 6y ago
I don't want it to sound like an attack, but honestly, how do you actually visualize this? I try to explore the anarchist leaning ideas with an open mind since I see the problems with government, but in a way, maybe I'm just a square but my reasoning always comes back to government. First I start with ok, I like my water drinkable and my food not poisoned, I do like my roads to go around, ok but smaller entities could regulate it, cool, but now we have thousands if not millions of entities regulating this in their own manner, wouldn't it be cool to have a standard? not too mention that some of this smaller entities would have a real hard time if they don't have enough resources that a central entity would distribute more fairly? It always seems to start from the basis of every actor will collaborate, what if the river I need for water is right outside the border from my smaller entity? is they only option war? Speaking of war, if we have all small entities that are peaceful amongst them but a couple of them decide they want more group and invade this smaller entities for their resources, maybe we could start an organization that unites the smaller entities together so we can defend against them, sounds familiar? looks like the history of mankind, and again it always seems to go back to government. My view is that it sounds like a nice idea to tend towards but not possible to instill unless we're on a situation where there's literally nothing to be gained by being a bad actor, and to be honest, I can't again visualize this scenario, how can there be nothing to be gained? It sounds to start terrible, nothing to aspire to? Again, I'd like to point out that you shouldn't get me started on the abuses of government and the injustices that it brings, but I just can't get my head out of what seem to be a necessary evil unless you are starting from basis that seem just counter to what human nature is. I'm more than open to being convinced otherwise since the idea sounds so good in so many regards.
- krapp 6y ago
  This has nothing to do with anarchy. This is a bill proposed by the government of the state of Nevada. Any "innovation zones" formed under this bill will not be sovereign states, they will still be subject to the laws of the state of Nevada and the US Federal government.

by hpoe 6y ago

gjsman-1000 6y ago

"We allowed people to form Governments instead of corporations that have a history of psychopathic behavior." On a flip note, are governments not known to also have a history of psychopathic behavior?

nr2x 6y ago
You get what you give.
- gjsman-1000 6y ago
  And on that note, is there any entity that has power that does not have a history of psychopathic behavior? Psychopathic behavior just comes with power, it seems.
  - nr2x 6y ago
    Yes, but complaining about “the government” in a functioning democracy* is just complaining about fellow citizens. Making “the government” into some exogenous monolith makes no sense. * Local conditions may vary, contact your local election official for details on gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, and voter suppression. Offer may not be available in all areas.
  - nix23 6y ago
    >Psychopathic behavior just comes with power, it seems. It's the opposite, psychopath are attracted by power.
    - benjohnson 6y ago
      I recognize in myself that power corrupts me. For example, now that I’m rich - I don’t see the poor as being equal to me. Instead of serving them, I just write a check.
      - 4b11b4 6y ago
        I can already feel the greed from the relatively small amount of money I have made in a recently short amount of time. I want more. and I'm even planning to turn over all of my assets into a non profit in 3 years. But I can still feel the greed.
      - nix23 6y ago
        A psychopath is not corrupted but sick...that's a big difference. Maybe your are both (a psychopath and corrupt) but for one of those points you aren't responsible (the sickness NOT the possible actions).
        benjohnson 6y ago
        Please keep your diagnosis to yourself - it will benefit you and those who love you. I have never met anybody else who was wealthy or powerful deny that temptation is there - historic literature is rife with the same sentiment.
        nix23 6y ago
        You understand what maybe means? BTW you are borderline: I wrote: It's the opposite, psychopath are attracted by power. Your Answer: >I recognize in myself that power corrupts me. For example, now that I’m rich - I don’t see the poor as being equal to me. I'm rich others are poor, right out of consent just to tell others your are rich (show your power) but actually not a bad person (manipulate). then: >Please keep your diagnosis to yourself - it will benefit you and those who love you. "Please keep your diagnosis to yourself - it will benefit you and" again a threat or show your power "those who love you" but i am actually not a bad person, that ticktok from threat to manipulation is the exact pattern of a psychopath. >I have never met anybody else who was wealthy or powerful deny that temptation is there - historic literature is rife with the same sentiment. No one said anything against that. And again "never met anybody else who was wealthy or powerful deny that temptation is there" i know lots of powerful people. "historic literature is rife with the same sentiment" i am so powerful i should compare myself to historic literature.
refurb 6y ago
Indeed. What is often ascribed to organizations or systems is often just a human tendency. Communism or capitalism, you see human faults in both.
ryanbrunner 6y ago
There have absolutely been governments that (if they were a person) exhibited psychopathic behaviour. Corporations are nearly by definition going to exhibit psychopathic behaviour, simply because acting in the interests of their workers or other people can legally only happen if it's compatible with the interest of shareholders. A government is at least capable of acting in the interests of its citizens, even if it doesn't always do that.
NoOneNew 6y ago
What NV is doing is a "company town" on a larger scale. If you look up company towns, their level of corruption make the mafia look like saints. People formed gov is no where perfect, but it's a fuckton better than company formed govs.

sneak 6y ago

Governments have way more of a history of psychopathic violence than corporations, on the order of 100-1000x more deaths in our recorded history. Corporations aren't (generally) permitted to directly engage in violence. The defining characteristic of a government that distinguishes it from all other groups of people is that it claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

gjsman-1000 6y ago
Actually, if you include all wars that have occurred from government in history, I'd say the number of deaths compared to corporations is a much higher multiple than that.
- ryanbrunner 6y ago
  I think it's an interesting question to consider how much of that is due to corporations being legally constrained from the sorts of violence governments engage in, particularly in a thread discussing relaxing legal constraints on corporations. If corporations were sovereign, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they participated in comparable levels of violence.
  - acdha 6y ago
    The East India Company would be a good supporting example or, more recently, United Fruit Company giving the world the term “banana republic”. I think the corporation versus government phrasing is obscuring the underlying problem of power without accountability to the people. That’s going to end poorly no matter the exact relationship between the private and public sectors.
patcon 6y ago
Let's be careful not to conflate "any aggression" with "psychopathic violence". The values at clash in past conflict are sometimes very human values, rather than manifestations of psychopathic anti-social mechanisms. (safe example: USA joining war against Germany) Though I'm sure the complexities of conflict make for a mixed bag of such overlapping actors and rationales...! I'm prepared to walk this thought back btw.

SllX 6y ago

The most recent municipal corporation formed in Nevada was in 2001. I think California has some more recent ones than that. People form governments all the damn time, most often municipal corporations. I’m not a fan of this new wave of interest in company towns, but the worst aspect of them was company scrip and that was outlawed by Congress. Still, cities are an emergent phenomenon, cities that you can call cities and not just cities on paper. You can’t plant a few skyscrapers in the ground and call it a day.

ghaff 6y ago
Even if it technically is, some apartment buildings, offices, restaurants, and stores in an existing industrial park is not a city in any meaningful sense. And throwing a dart at a map of Nevada and building a city for 100K people on the premise of "if you build it they will come" would almost certainly be a hilarious failure even if some billionaire felt his cash burning a hole in his pocket.
- SllX 6y ago
  I agree.

Trufa 6y ago

I don't want it to sound like an attack, but honestly, how do you actually visualize this? I try to explore the anarchist leaning ideas with an open mind since I see the problems with government, but in a way, maybe I'm just a square but my reasoning always comes back to government. First I start with ok, I like my water drinkable and my food not poisoned, I do like my roads to go around, ok but smaller entities could regulate it, cool, but now we have thousands if not millions of entities regulating this in their own manner, wouldn't it be cool to have a standard? not too mention that some of this smaller entities would have a real hard time if they don't have enough resources that a central entity would distribute more fairly? It always seems to start from the basis of every actor will collaborate, what if the river I need for water is right outside the border from my smaller entity? is they only option war? Speaking of war, if we have all small entities that are peaceful amongst them but a couple of them decide they want more group and invade this smaller entities for their resources, maybe we could start an organization that unites the smaller entities together so we can defend against them, sounds familiar? looks like the history of mankind, and again it always seems to go back to government. My view is that it sounds like a nice idea to tend towards but not possible to instill unless we're on a situation where there's literally nothing to be gained by being a bad actor, and to be honest, I can't again visualize this scenario, how can there be nothing to be gained? It sounds to start terrible, nothing to aspire to? Again, I'd like to point out that you shouldn't get me started on the abuses of government and the injustices that it brings, but I just can't get my head out of what seem to be a necessary evil unless you are starting from basis that seem just counter to what human nature is. I'm more than open to being convinced otherwise since the idea sounds so good in so many regards.

krapp 6y ago
This has nothing to do with anarchy. This is a bill proposed by the government of the state of Nevada. Any "innovation zones" formed under this bill will not be sovereign states, they will still be subject to the laws of the state of Nevada and the US Federal government.