5 ms·

This is how gov works. Its why we need as little as possible. Its very difficult to hold them accountable when their funding is essentially guaranteed regardles

This is how gov works. Its why we need as little as possible. Its very difficult to hold them accountable when their funding is essentially guaranteed regardless of performance.

egberts1 4y ago
I concur
dehrmann 4y ago
Once you learn that sovereign immunity exists, it makes you think differently about the role of government.
mcphage 4y ago
Wait until you learn how hard it is to hold corporations accountable, let alone specific individuals at those corporations.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
IntelMiner 4y ago
What do you propose as an alternative? History both old and new shows how irresponsible corporations across the planet have been
- redeeman 4y ago
  very true, but corporations tend to not come to your house armed with guns if you dont pay protection money. sure, there have been such, but nobody ever considered them legitimate like people do with "governments"
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Have you ever heard of the Pinkertons? There are other corporations in history that had a "security" force of some sort that absolutely was used as a means of intimidation
    - QuarterReptile 4y ago
      Not GP, but yes; are you implying Pinkertons were in the habit of putting private homes under siege? I've never heard about that.
    - redeeman 4y ago
      well yeah, things have happened, but still far from how it currently is in pretty much every country. If I do not consent to rules forced upon me, and stop paying protection money, ultimately government goons with guns are gonna come to haul me away.
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    Nobody has to point a gun at you to make your life incredibly miserable.
  - sillystuff 4y ago
    The East India Company had its own armies and navy. They subjugated entire nations of people before being incorporated into the British state. In the US, the capitalist mine owners, railroad owners and factory owners all employed paramilitaries to crush worker uprisings-- the tactics often included murder. In the case of Blair mountain, the capitalists' paramilitary forces even used aircraft to drop chemical and explosive bombs (left over from WWI) on striking mine workers. The use of paramilitaries by corporations continues with e.g., Exxon accused of murders of environmental activists in the Niger delta. But, often corporations use state apparatus to affect violence for their advantage-- e.g., the many US illegal wars of aggression / regime change to steal resources of other nations. Or, the domestic use of police to e.g., attack indigenous protesters attempting to block an oil pipeline (Keystone XL) being built across their land against their wishes-- the police fired tear gas, rubber coated steel bullets, and water cannons (in the middle of winter) on the protesters, in service of TC Energy Corporation. Governments engage in violence, but large scale government violence is usually at the behest of the very same rich powerful entities that historically employed their own henchmen or even their own private armies. Small scale government violence may just be sadistic and/or corrupt officials. While this petty violence is terrible for the victims, it is insignificant compared to the large scale violence committed in service of the rich and powerful. The rich don't seem to care if a police department/FBI engages in theft/murder, as long as it doesn't affect them, and state apparatus to inflict violence is simply too useful to the rich to reign it in. Governments are not the problem. The capture of government by the rich and powerful is the problem. Unfortunately, many states seem to have designed their systems to ensure the rich control policy while the masses remain powerless-- the US, where money is speech, is a good example (159 rich people were responsible for 59% of SuperPAC campaign money, and 93% came from 3300 rich people-- they will expect a return on their investment). https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/05/disturbing-data-rich-and-powerful-get-their-policies-adopted-even-if-opposed/ https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/05/disturbing-d...
- FpUser 4y ago
  We do not need an alternative. We need independent oversight with broad legal powers when it comes to crimes / misdeeds committed by our "servants".
  - kodyo 4y ago
    Having a tyranny-proof government undermines the purpose of government.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      I would sort of agree. It looks like a regular bandits who after undergoing long evolution had came up with this genius idea that maybe getting taxes in the end is more profitable than outright robbery. Bud that ugly muzzle still shows up all the time.
hilbert42 4y ago
If anyone needs an explanation for why the populous has little faith in both democratic government and its longstanding institutions then this abuse of power is a quintessential example. Clearly, one of the biggest problems with government (and large corporations) is that individual employees can hide behind and be protected by the institutional infrastructure. Essentially they can make decisions with impunity knowing that the 'system' will protect them. If we're to restore any faith in our governance then this protection must stop. Decisions made by government employees must be open to public scrutiny, similarly, the origins of government policy—laws, regulations etc.—must be traceable back to its source (those who initiated said policies). Systems without accountability will always become corrupt.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  Not sure why you specify skepticism in just democratic government (especially since the article is about abuse if power in a republic government). Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals....
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    'Democratic (or republic) government' as opposed to totalitarian ones because the latter are almost always corrupt (almost by definition), thus excluded from discussion. (Truly benevolent dictators are like hens' teeth—non existent.)
cercatrova 4y ago
I saw a meme recently that was like, Gov: let me do X Libertarian: no way! Big government is bad! Gov: but what if I was a corporation Libertarian: shit, that's all you needed to say Really highlights how some people can think a gov is bad but if a corporation does the same actions, suddenly it's justified. We should be wary of organizations as a whole, regardless of what form they take.
- blackoil 4y ago
  Govt has a right to violence. You can't choose to stop using govt without moving yourself. They are an organization specifically to serve people. So they need to be held to higher standards.
  - busterarm 4y ago
    Not a right to violence. A monopoly on violence. This is why self-defense laws are important.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      No, a right, constrained by legitimacy. The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.

This is how gov works. Its why we need as little as possible. Its very difficult to hold them accountable when their funding is essentially guaranteed regardless of performance.

egberts1 4y ago

I concur

dehrmann 4y ago

Once you learn that sovereign immunity exists, it makes you think differently about the role of government.

mcphage 4y ago

Wait until you learn how hard it is to hold corporations accountable, let alone specific individuals at those corporations.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

IntelMiner 4y ago

What do you propose as an alternative? History both old and new shows how irresponsible corporations across the planet have been

redeeman 4y ago
very true, but corporations tend to not come to your house armed with guns if you dont pay protection money. sure, there have been such, but nobody ever considered them legitimate like people do with "governments"
- dylan604 4y ago
  Have you ever heard of the Pinkertons? There are other corporations in history that had a "security" force of some sort that absolutely was used as a means of intimidation
  - QuarterReptile 4y ago
    Not GP, but yes; are you implying Pinkertons were in the habit of putting private homes under siege? I've never heard about that.
  - redeeman 4y ago
    well yeah, things have happened, but still far from how it currently is in pretty much every country. If I do not consent to rules forced upon me, and stop paying protection money, ultimately government goons with guns are gonna come to haul me away.
- saagarjha 4y ago
  Nobody has to point a gun at you to make your life incredibly miserable.
- sillystuff 4y ago
  The East India Company had its own armies and navy. They subjugated entire nations of people before being incorporated into the British state. In the US, the capitalist mine owners, railroad owners and factory owners all employed paramilitaries to crush worker uprisings-- the tactics often included murder. In the case of Blair mountain, the capitalists' paramilitary forces even used aircraft to drop chemical and explosive bombs (left over from WWI) on striking mine workers. The use of paramilitaries by corporations continues with e.g., Exxon accused of murders of environmental activists in the Niger delta. But, often corporations use state apparatus to affect violence for their advantage-- e.g., the many US illegal wars of aggression / regime change to steal resources of other nations. Or, the domestic use of police to e.g., attack indigenous protesters attempting to block an oil pipeline (Keystone XL) being built across their land against their wishes-- the police fired tear gas, rubber coated steel bullets, and water cannons (in the middle of winter) on the protesters, in service of TC Energy Corporation. Governments engage in violence, but large scale government violence is usually at the behest of the very same rich powerful entities that historically employed their own henchmen or even their own private armies. Small scale government violence may just be sadistic and/or corrupt officials. While this petty violence is terrible for the victims, it is insignificant compared to the large scale violence committed in service of the rich and powerful. The rich don't seem to care if a police department/FBI engages in theft/murder, as long as it doesn't affect them, and state apparatus to inflict violence is simply too useful to the rich to reign it in. Governments are not the problem. The capture of government by the rich and powerful is the problem. Unfortunately, many states seem to have designed their systems to ensure the rich control policy while the masses remain powerless-- the US, where money is speech, is a good example (159 rich people were responsible for 59% of SuperPAC campaign money, and 93% came from 3300 rich people-- they will expect a return on their investment). https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/05/disturbing-data-rich-and-powerful-get-their-policies-adopted-even-if-opposed/ https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/05/disturbing-d...
FpUser 4y ago
We do not need an alternative. We need independent oversight with broad legal powers when it comes to crimes / misdeeds committed by our "servants".
- kodyo 4y ago
  Having a tyranny-proof government undermines the purpose of government.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    I would sort of agree. It looks like a regular bandits who after undergoing long evolution had came up with this genius idea that maybe getting taxes in the end is more profitable than outright robbery. Bud that ugly muzzle still shows up all the time.

hilbert42 4y ago

If anyone needs an explanation for why the populous has little faith in both democratic government and its longstanding institutions then this abuse of power is a quintessential example. Clearly, one of the biggest problems with government (and large corporations) is that individual employees can hide behind and be protected by the institutional infrastructure. Essentially they can make decisions with impunity knowing that the 'system' will protect them. If we're to restore any faith in our governance then this protection must stop. Decisions made by government employees must be open to public scrutiny, similarly, the origins of government policy—laws, regulations etc.—must be traceable back to its source (those who initiated said policies). Systems without accountability will always become corrupt.

readthenotes1 4y ago
Not sure why you specify skepticism in just democratic government (especially since the article is about abuse if power in a republic government). Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals....
- hilbert42 4y ago
  'Democratic (or republic) government' as opposed to totalitarian ones because the latter are almost always corrupt (almost by definition), thus excluded from discussion. (Truly benevolent dictators are like hens' teeth—non existent.)

cercatrova 4y ago

I saw a meme recently that was like, Gov: let me do X Libertarian: no way! Big government is bad! Gov: but what if I was a corporation Libertarian: shit, that's all you needed to say Really highlights how some people can think a gov is bad but if a corporation does the same actions, suddenly it's justified. We should be wary of organizations as a whole, regardless of what form they take.

blackoil 4y ago
Govt has a right to violence. You can't choose to stop using govt without moving yourself. They are an organization specifically to serve people. So they need to be held to higher standards.
- busterarm 4y ago
  Not a right to violence. A monopoly on violence. This is why self-defense laws are important.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    No, a right, constrained by legitimacy. The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.