6 ms·

This is what I find bewildering about people who want to essentially dismantle government, because "freedom": where do they think the power goes? We'll be livi

This is what I find bewildering about people who want to essentially dismantle government, because "freedom": where do they think the power goes? We'll be living in a company country.

gruez 5y ago
>where do they think the power goes? Private companies competing each other to provide the best service?
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  So, you would prefer zero regulation?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 5y ago
    No, what made you think that? Follow up question to yours: are you talking about literal anarchists (ie. people who don't want a government) or just libertarians (people who want less government)?
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      >are you talking about literal anarchists...or just libertarians?" Probably less binary and anywhere along that continuum. That is, it's a question of degree wherein my concerns go up the closer things get to zero. It's difficult to discuss in earnest without somewhat painstakingly specific scenarios, but the gist of my comment was that as you shed government, its powers don't simply disappear; they're redistributed elsewhere. And, given that our government is (at least theoretically) by the people, we're really talking about relinquishing the power of the individual to corporations. Taking it back to the topic of this thread ("Amazon factory towns"), I believe that's essentially what the country would become—wholly owned by corporations. I don't believe in the concept of corporate personhood and I don't think corporations need more power, so I don't believe that's a good outcome.
      - jjk166 5y ago
        There are lots of powers which if shed would not be picked up by somebody else. For example if you remove the government's ability to grant FISA warrants for wiretaps, that does not suddenly grant wiretapping powers to other entities. Shut down the EPA and no one gains the ability to regulate sulphur emissions. Shut down the FDA and no one gains the authority to stop drugs from going to market. Shut down the patent office and no one gains the ability to grant patents. There are cases where the government is actively limiting other entities abilities to abuse their powers. For example you want to restrict who a power company can shut off service to so they don't extort people in the middle of winter. Giving up the regulation of such utilities would simply be a power transfer (no pun intended). But this represents only a small fraction of the governments powers, and in general unregulated means exactly that.
- xg15 5y ago
  It's fun to see that mantra repeated on an article about company towns of all things. Where is the competition when Amazon (or whoever else) is employer, landlord, bank, store and city government at the same time?
kwere 5y ago
Will?
PorterDuff 5y ago
It's probably best to view government as simply the largest corporation, and a monopoly at that.
- xg15 5y ago
  And so you'd like to replace it with another monopoly corporation, except one that has an authoritarian internal structure instead of a democratic one?
- bakuninsbart 5y ago
  Both are organizations, and we are deep enough into capitalism at this point, that we measure every organization by how it would fare as a corporation. This isn't necessarily bad, but only one way to look at it. As a person who considers themselves democratic, I think every citizen should be an equal shareholder in government Inc. And maybe things would be a bit better if the have-nots were bigger shareholders in other corporations, too.
equality_1138 5y ago
Fascinating. So do you think government is essentially doing a great job at protecting freedom and maintaining decentralized power structures? Or are they too busy building company towns?

This is what I find bewildering about people who want to essentially dismantle government, because "freedom": where do they think the power goes? We'll be living in a company country.

gruez 5y ago

>where do they think the power goes? Private companies competing each other to provide the best service?

unclebucknasty 5y ago
So, you would prefer zero regulation?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 5y ago
  No, what made you think that? Follow up question to yours: are you talking about literal anarchists (ie. people who don't want a government) or just libertarians (people who want less government)?
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >are you talking about literal anarchists...or just libertarians?" Probably less binary and anywhere along that continuum. That is, it's a question of degree wherein my concerns go up the closer things get to zero. It's difficult to discuss in earnest without somewhat painstakingly specific scenarios, but the gist of my comment was that as you shed government, its powers don't simply disappear; they're redistributed elsewhere. And, given that our government is (at least theoretically) by the people, we're really talking about relinquishing the power of the individual to corporations. Taking it back to the topic of this thread ("Amazon factory towns"), I believe that's essentially what the country would become—wholly owned by corporations. I don't believe in the concept of corporate personhood and I don't think corporations need more power, so I don't believe that's a good outcome.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      There are lots of powers which if shed would not be picked up by somebody else. For example if you remove the government's ability to grant FISA warrants for wiretaps, that does not suddenly grant wiretapping powers to other entities. Shut down the EPA and no one gains the ability to regulate sulphur emissions. Shut down the FDA and no one gains the authority to stop drugs from going to market. Shut down the patent office and no one gains the ability to grant patents. There are cases where the government is actively limiting other entities abilities to abuse their powers. For example you want to restrict who a power company can shut off service to so they don't extort people in the middle of winter. Giving up the regulation of such utilities would simply be a power transfer (no pun intended). But this represents only a small fraction of the governments powers, and in general unregulated means exactly that.
xg15 5y ago
It's fun to see that mantra repeated on an article about company towns of all things. Where is the competition when Amazon (or whoever else) is employer, landlord, bank, store and city government at the same time?

kwere 5y ago

Will?

PorterDuff 5y ago

It's probably best to view government as simply the largest corporation, and a monopoly at that.

xg15 5y ago
And so you'd like to replace it with another monopoly corporation, except one that has an authoritarian internal structure instead of a democratic one?
bakuninsbart 5y ago
Both are organizations, and we are deep enough into capitalism at this point, that we measure every organization by how it would fare as a corporation. This isn't necessarily bad, but only one way to look at it. As a person who considers themselves democratic, I think every citizen should be an equal shareholder in government Inc. And maybe things would be a bit better if the have-nots were bigger shareholders in other corporations, too.

equality_1138 5y ago

Fascinating. So do you think government is essentially doing a great job at protecting freedom and maintaining decentralized power structures? Or are they too busy building company towns?