5 ms·
> one of the reasons we need a bigger, more powerful federal government is to have a governmental entity that can take on the massively more powerful private en
by TimTheTinker 5y ago
> one of the reasons we need a bigger, more powerful federal government is to have a governmental entity that can take on the massively more powerful private entities (corporations) that exist.
Is bigger government more able to do this? It already has the power it needs -- the legislature can outlaw undesirable corporate behaviors, the justice department can pursue litigation (including antitrust litigation), and federal courts can rule against unlawful behavior by these companies. I don't see how bigger further enables any of these goals.
The problem I see is that lobbying and corporate hobnobbing with government elites in Washington creates a friendship and unity between corporate elites and government that ought not to exist. (Exhibit A: Ajit Pai)
A merely bigger government concentrates unjust power at the top: power to dictate more of our lives and increase bureaucracy, not power to enact justice and protect liberty.
We need a better government, not a bigger one -- a government that enforces justice without corporate favoritism, enacts the will of the people through representation, and upholds and protects the US constitution.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoYou need a government with enough heft to take on a corporation that has decided to ignore the law. If you think you can get heft via "better", go for it. History doesn't give me much reason to be optimistic. "The problem with corruption, inefficiency and stupidity in government is corruption, inefficieny and stupidity, not government."
- baud147258 5y ago> You need a government with enough heft Governments have the monopoly on the use of legitimate force on their territory (and the means that go with it). Isn't that enough heft to go after any corporation?
- actionfromafar 5y agoI don't understand how you can come to this conclusion? A small country is dependent on good relations, foreign investors and on and on and on. Even at best, the small country gets limited clout. What can a small country do against a multinational company or against the WTO etc etc
- Jensson 5y agoThey can make an economic union and together make an ultimatum against the company. See EU, it works without creating a large centralized country like US did.
- dorkabork 5y agoI can’t tell and I’m genuinely asking: are you suggesting we empower government to dispatch force against a private corporation? As in, the imaginary paperwork construct we all agree upon being an actual thing and accordingly empower with agency and a noun and a stock symbol? You want to park an Abrams in front of that thing and aim? (On reflection, what’s interesting about my question here is how it’s simultaneously metaphorical and literal through absolutely no effort of mine. The idea itself made that happen, rather oddly.)
- MereInterest 5y agoThis phrase is frequently misunderstood, because people treat it as a truism about government, rather than the method by which to identify the government. It is not the case that the officially recognized government has a monopoly on violence. Rather, whichever group has a monopoly on violence is itself the government. If multiple groups can use violence, then there is no monopoly, and therefore no overarching government.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago> You need a government with enough heft Could you elucidate what you mean by "heft"? Sometimes I think people want a feeling of power over them (or others) without a clear sense of the mechanism or implications of that power. It could be any of: - more taxes - more government employees - more laws - more law enforcement - more bureaucracy - more regulations - more enforcement of regulations - more military power - more domestic espionage - more foreign espionage - martial law - less democracy I'd argue that having a better government does not imply more heft, but more efficiency and justice, without sacrificing democratic election and separation/limitation of powers. Some of the most efficient governments in the world also lack proper separation and limitation of powers, which degrades personal freedom. Democracy that leads to freedom is an extraordinarily tough balancing act; early US founders recognized that and publicly called on almighty God to help and aid them in their efforts.
- scurraorbis 5y agoWho limits liability of (certain types of) companies? The government. Maybe it should stop doing that and we could see if we still need all that heft? What if the inefficiency, corruption and stupidity is due to the very nature of government?
- barrkel 5y agoBeggar thy neighbor policies require higher level coordination to escape. E.g. tax competition between states to attract large companies, which not only reduces public funds but also disadvantages smaller local companies, is hard to prevent without agreements between states, or policies at a superstate level. Replace taxes with permission to pollute, or worker rights, or other regulations, if you don't see a problem with tax competition. The point is that competition in practice reduces the sovereignty of the population of smaller government units.
- TimTheTinker 5y agoAgreed, and I'm not suggesting regulation of multi-state (or multi-national) corporations ought to fall to individual states in the US.