3 ms·

The answer is to limit the concentration of power. That is the Libertarian argument, if there is no lever to pull, there wont be corruption issues with people f

The answer is to limit the concentration of power. That is the Libertarian argument, if there is no lever to pull, there wont be corruption issues with people fighting over that lever. Instead, order should arise naturally as an emergent system from the ground up, always voluntarily with mutual benefit and never under the threat of force. A small corrupt goverment is always better than a massive corrupt goverment, and all systems of control eventually corrupt.

Kuinox 5y ago
That's doesn't solve it. In France there is a lot of corrupted mayors, even in small villages/cities, it's hard to limit make the power less concentrated, you need accountability and making harder to be corrupted without being caught immediatly.
- DennisP 5y ago
  Limiting the opportunities for corruption is definitely important. The libertarian approach goes at it from another angle: limiting the damage that corrupt politicians can do, by limiting their authority over the rest of us. Seems to me that both approaches can work in tandem.
  - Kuinox 5y ago
    It doesn't works that's well, you often end up with bureaucracy nonsense.
germinalphrase 5y ago
I’ve always felt that this perspective entirely ignores that government is not the only source of extant power and that “order should arise naturally as an emergent system from the ground up always voluntarily with mutual benefit” is woefully idealistic (and functionally impossible) as we are not operating from a clean slate. There are already powerful people/entities that will take immediate advantage of governmental reduction in power to increase their own without any consideration of consent and/or mutual benefit. As an idea, sure - it’s lovely; but, if enacted, I don’t see how it doesn’t lead to something akin to feudalism. I’d even go so far as to suggest that it has the feeling of an ideological strategy by the already powerful to get the average person to ‘unilaterally disarm’ their own collective power. I’d love to be proved wrong, of course.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Kuinox 5y ago

That's doesn't solve it. In France there is a lot of corrupted mayors, even in small villages/cities, it's hard to limit make the power less concentrated, you need accountability and making harder to be corrupted without being caught immediatly.

DennisP 5y ago
Limiting the opportunities for corruption is definitely important. The libertarian approach goes at it from another angle: limiting the damage that corrupt politicians can do, by limiting their authority over the rest of us. Seems to me that both approaches can work in tandem.
- Kuinox 5y ago
  It doesn't works that's well, you often end up with bureaucracy nonsense.

germinalphrase 5y ago

I’ve always felt that this perspective entirely ignores that government is not the only source of extant power and that “order should arise naturally as an emergent system from the ground up always voluntarily with mutual benefit” is woefully idealistic (and functionally impossible) as we are not operating from a clean slate. There are already powerful people/entities that will take immediate advantage of governmental reduction in power to increase their own without any consideration of consent and/or mutual benefit. As an idea, sure - it’s lovely; but, if enacted, I don’t see how it doesn’t lead to something akin to feudalism. I’d even go so far as to suggest that it has the feeling of an ideological strategy by the already powerful to get the average person to ‘unilaterally disarm’ their own collective power. I’d love to be proved wrong, of course.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]