4 ms·

The Government does not just help corporations. It also, frequently, hurts them. Overall, the majority of corporations would be better off if the Government mos

by qqq 18y ago

The Government does not just help corporations. It also, frequently, hurts them. Overall, the majority of corporations would be better off if the Government mostly left them alone and stuck to the basics of maintaining law and order. The Government also both helps, and hurts, everyday people, all the time. And again people would, overall, be better off if the Government did less. But that is no reason to be skeptical of the good will of the Government when it does something genuinely helpful. Even in most of the cases where Government is harmful, it means well.

mattmaroon 18y ago
I don't believe that. Most cases in which the government is harmful are caused by individuals putting their own interests above that of their constituencies. "The Government" is not an organism and it's a very common mistake to think of it (or a corporation) as one. It's a group of individuals many of whom have to be reelected to maintain their status. Farm subsidies exist, even though every economist says they should not, because congressmen like the bucks passed to them by the agricultural lobbies, because those bucks help them get reelected. Etc. For a real interesting read, pick up Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food. It explains how the interplay between government officials who meant well and ones clinging to power through corporate dollars degraded our country's diet to the point where it's significantly less healthy than that of indigenous tribes who eat nothing but red meat. It's neat how a government mandate to eat less meat instead became one to eat more carbs.
- qqq 18y ago
  I agree with most of what you say. But consider again those cases where an individual legislator "puts his own interest first". In those cases, our system of government put officials in a situation where they have a conflict of interest. That is a flaw in our system of Government and should not be blamed on the malice of any individual. Whatever you do in a conflict of interest there was no single, clear path to follow, so no one can blame you too much, and if you choose the wrong path it's an understandable mistake. If you don't want people to use power, don't give them power. It's not, individually, their fault. I do not wish to defend out and out corruption, but that's relatively uncommon compared to simple conflicts of interest. Most people are selfish, and there's nothing wrong with that, and what's going wrong is asking them to make terrible choices between themselves and others.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Totally. Our lawmakers are given an incentive system that often puts their interests in direct opposition to ours. People over time will trend toward their own interests. It's not so much that we cannot give them power (or want not to) as that we must do so while aligning their interests with ours. One example (and I'm not sure I support this) would be to force all campaigns to be government funded. Find every possible reason why lobbyists give money and stop it.
    - qqq 18y ago
      The more of a free market, and small government, we have, the less there is for lobbyists to buy, and the less decisions for politicians to make. Moving in that direction will at least lessen the problem. :) That's kind of what I mean about power. For example, if there are people in charge of the economy -- with power over it -- that's a problem and people will want to pay them to use the power to their benefit. But there needn't be anyone with power of that sort.

by qqq 18y ago

mattmaroon 18y ago

I don't believe that. Most cases in which the government is harmful are caused by individuals putting their own interests above that of their constituencies. "The Government" is not an organism and it's a very common mistake to think of it (or a corporation) as one. It's a group of individuals many of whom have to be reelected to maintain their status. Farm subsidies exist, even though every economist says they should not, because congressmen like the bucks passed to them by the agricultural lobbies, because those bucks help them get reelected. Etc. For a real interesting read, pick up Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food. It explains how the interplay between government officials who meant well and ones clinging to power through corporate dollars degraded our country's diet to the point where it's significantly less healthy than that of indigenous tribes who eat nothing but red meat. It's neat how a government mandate to eat less meat instead became one to eat more carbs.

qqq 18y ago
I agree with most of what you say. But consider again those cases where an individual legislator "puts his own interest first". In those cases, our system of government put officials in a situation where they have a conflict of interest. That is a flaw in our system of Government and should not be blamed on the malice of any individual. Whatever you do in a conflict of interest there was no single, clear path to follow, so no one can blame you too much, and if you choose the wrong path it's an understandable mistake. If you don't want people to use power, don't give them power. It's not, individually, their fault. I do not wish to defend out and out corruption, but that's relatively uncommon compared to simple conflicts of interest. Most people are selfish, and there's nothing wrong with that, and what's going wrong is asking them to make terrible choices between themselves and others.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Totally. Our lawmakers are given an incentive system that often puts their interests in direct opposition to ours. People over time will trend toward their own interests. It's not so much that we cannot give them power (or want not to) as that we must do so while aligning their interests with ours. One example (and I'm not sure I support this) would be to force all campaigns to be government funded. Find every possible reason why lobbyists give money and stop it.
  - qqq 18y ago
    The more of a free market, and small government, we have, the less there is for lobbyists to buy, and the less decisions for politicians to make. Moving in that direction will at least lessen the problem. :) That's kind of what I mean about power. For example, if there are people in charge of the economy -- with power over it -- that's a problem and people will want to pay them to use the power to their benefit. But there needn't be anyone with power of that sort.