5 ms·
They were able to do it because the government is/was huge. If it wasn't and if they did not have so much power, there wouldn't have been anyone to lobby.
by nexus_dave 5y ago
They were able to do it because the government is/was huge. If it wasn't and if they did not have so much power, there wouldn't have been anyone to lobby.
- kcatskcolbdi 5y agoThe problem with this line of thought (and generally libertarian ideology) is the requirement of a threat of violence to conduct commerce. The violence can't come from the parties involved because if there's an imbalance it ruins the neutrality of trade. But the threat of a violent outcome (jail, or fine with physical enforcement) must be present to prevent theft. Once you accept that you have to give a 3rd party the monopoly on violence you are now effectively giving them the authority to do as they please. You can wax on about how government should have less power on internet forums, but organizations with power and weapons don't give up that power without using the weapons.
- jokethrowaway 5y agoWithout a government and with a system of competing law enforcements backed by armies who setup different laws, and a system of competing private court systems, we may get fairer treatment. Perfect justice is impossible to achieve (someone will always be able to bribe someone else), but by spreading out the corruptible people and by putting them in competition on a market (where reputation matters), you will get a fairer system than the disgusting monopoly we have right now.
- kcatskcolbdi 5y agoWhy would we get fairer treatment instead of treatment that exclusively favors the people with the most money and weapons?
- Goronmon 5y agoI thought a system that favors the people with the most money and weapons was the whole point of the libertarian idealogy?
- tastyfreeze 5y agoLots of groups with their own armies is just asking for constant fighting. There is a reason that each state doesnt have its own standing army. The founders saw how such a system worked in Europe with countries using war frequently to take what they wanted.
- nexus_dave 5y agoI am not proposing anarchy. You are confusing socialism with libertarianism. Socialism is violence. If you don't trust me you can test it out by refusing to pay your tax.
- gilrain 5y agoIf they didn't have to even try to persuade the imperfect agent of the people to let them do what they want, they would stop doing what they want on their own? Smart!
- papito 5y agoSmall government logged into chat. Wouldn't smaller government make their efforts more effective as the dollar per person corruption would be higher? And then we go, "oh gee, we don't have enough people to audit white collar crimes because the Small Government crusaders gutted the IRA, for some reason". It's not about small government, it's about an ineffective, castrated government, so companies like Exxon can steamroll it and have their own way to profit. Exxon would love nothing more than this... small government.
- jokethrowaway 5y agoIt's not about having a smaller government, it's about having no government at all and third parties competing law enforcements and third parties competing private courts.
- ativzzz 5y agoIf there's no government at all, then the oil companies buy their own army and become the government.
- nexus_dave 5y agoI am not proposing anarchism, only small government.
- nexus_dave 5y agoNot if there is nothing to steamroll. Moreover, the bigger the government the less the smaller players can compete.
- the_gastropod 5y agoYea! If only the government was smaller, and lacked any teeth to do anything, Exxon wouldn't have to lobby anyone to exploit the commons for their own profit!... wait.
- tgv 5y agoRemember: if there are no laws, you don't even need to lobby.