3 ms·
That's what I'm wondering. Maybe we agree about the apparent root cause of the issue but we need a tangible solution to it, which could be restructuring ownersh
by feet 4y ago
That's what I'm wondering. Maybe we agree about the apparent root cause of the issue but we need a tangible solution to it, which could be restructuring ownership of businesses to better suit the people that make up those businesses. Regulation is a way to do that, or other things. But whatever we do will take some sort of regulation, or those same people who have too much money and power are going to keep doing the same old shit
- int_19h 4y ago> but whatever we do will take some sort of regulation Not necessarily. For example, government reducing the scope of property right protection is less regulation, not more.
- feet 4y agoOkay how do they do that without regulation How does a government do anything without regulation? Is regulation not what government literally does?
- int_19h 4y agoGovernment protecting property is regulation: it's literally saying "if you touch X, which we consider to be owned by Y, we'll hurt you". It's that regulation that allows people and corporations to accumulate property (and, in particular, capital) indefinitely, knowing that however much they have, the government will intervene on their behalf. Now imagine the government saying something like "we don't consider X owned by Y; Y already has too much". This isn't regulation per se - nothing is regulated, and there's less enforcement, not more. The government isn't going around taking things away; it's just refusing to recognize X's claim and enforce it.
- feet 4y agoIf people don't have the protection then it doesn't matter what the government does or doesn't do because those who do have power will do the same thing they always have. Shot on those who don't, that is my point