3 ms·

What are you comparing with (both for government and for criminals)? In case of criminals it's easier to imagine a similar world where just criminals don't do c

by robryk 4y ago

What are you comparing with (both for government and for criminals)? In case of criminals it's easier to imagine a similar world where just criminals don't do crime; however, that comparison fails to take into account indirect effects of crimes (which are both negative -- e.g. costs spent on protection against crime -- and positive -- more incentives to influence the society so that crime is less beneficial). In the case of government, I find it hard to see what do you mean by "same world, but without government". If everyone behaved the same in absence of government, nothing would really change. If we take into account changes in people's behaviour due to lack of government, then how do we stipulate that no government forms in that world? Are we imagining a world where everyone knows that forming any government will end the world and thus no one does that? In that case I'm hard pressed to even guess the sign of the difference in magnitude of harm, let alone its order of magnitude.

kodyo 4y ago
Is there an organization you can think of other than a government that is capable of bringing about a Chinese Great Leap Forward, a Soviet Holodomor, or a German Holocaust? Money laundering and drug trafficking are rounding errors.
- bbreier 4y ago
  East India Company
  - MarkPNeyer 4y ago
    … which had an army bigger than Britain’s.
- robryk 4y ago
  I can't imagine how a society in a world where $DEITY would strike down anyone who tried to create a government would look like; I don't know what they'd use for coordination and whether it would be more or less vulnerable to e.g. creating correlations that defeat the disaster-prevention of the law of large numbers. If we want to compare two situations, we should not only point out the differences in one direction. Otherwise we'd end up claiming that e.g. a society on a desert will have many fewer deaths on account of drowning being vastly less likely.
- juuular 4y ago
  Facebook, Amazon, and friends certainly seem on track to give governments a run for their money. Facebook itself has directly led to genocide multiple times. Amazon wouldn't bat an eye at such atrocities if they were socially accepted and good for the bottom line. Corporations might do it for a different reason — seeking capital above all else — but the end result is the same. Any organization that gathers enough power would be capable of bringing about a Chinese Great Leap Forward, a Soviet Holodomor, or a German Holocaust. Some of the worst abuses in history were made possible by the invention of the corporation. Ever hear of the East India Company? They are responsible for 100s of millions of deaths, many genocides, and the eradication of entire cultures. The difference is that we now regulate corporations to hopefully prevent this level of power and abuse. We seem to be moving towards a new era of East India Companies though, so I'm not sure why you think only a "government" could commit atrocities. Hell, the Irish famine was caused by the British adhering to free market principles. In that case corporations and the government teamed up together to kill 15% of the Irish population for no particularly good reason. Governments do not have a monopoly on atrocity. Edit: Nestlé probably has a bodycount approaching the governments you listed.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Some of the worst abuses in history were made possible by the invention of the corporation. Ever hear of the East India Company? They are responsible for 100s of millions of deaths, many genocides, and the eradication of entire cultures. “The corporation” in general is, and the British East India Company in particular was, a tool of government, not an opposing force.
Xeoncross 4y ago
I'm not stating that we abolish government, just that 'checks and balances' are good for government. Unlimited government power has historically been, well, terrorizing for citizens in the same ways as large crime groups - but far more deadly.
- ilyt 4y ago
  There in general needs to be more accountability for people in power, instead we got reverse, the richer and more powerful someone is the less punishment they get for fuckups (unless they fuck up with wrong people's money I guess). Hell, politician can lie their way to power, realize nothing of what they promise and still somehow not lose the "job"
- robryk 4y ago
  In that case it's hard to say which deaths are "caused by government". If a government could have imposed a policy that prevented them, are they caused by government? Should we balance that against side effects of such a policy? What about side effects of a feasible way of arriving at such a policy? If we want to discount such deaths as caused by the government, we will end up with lots of cases of "would not happen but for policy X, but policy Y would have prevented them". From some POV _every single death_ is somehow caused by some policy that's government-imposed. To have a reasonable way to define "caused by government" we need to have something to compare with.

by robryk 4y ago

kodyo 4y ago

Is there an organization you can think of other than a government that is capable of bringing about a Chinese Great Leap Forward, a Soviet Holodomor, or a German Holocaust? Money laundering and drug trafficking are rounding errors.

bbreier 4y ago
East India Company
- MarkPNeyer 4y ago
  … which had an army bigger than Britain’s.
robryk 4y ago
I can't imagine how a society in a world where $DEITY would strike down anyone who tried to create a government would look like; I don't know what they'd use for coordination and whether it would be more or less vulnerable to e.g. creating correlations that defeat the disaster-prevention of the law of large numbers. If we want to compare two situations, we should not only point out the differences in one direction. Otherwise we'd end up claiming that e.g. a society on a desert will have many fewer deaths on account of drowning being vastly less likely.
juuular 4y ago
Facebook, Amazon, and friends certainly seem on track to give governments a run for their money. Facebook itself has directly led to genocide multiple times. Amazon wouldn't bat an eye at such atrocities if they were socially accepted and good for the bottom line. Corporations might do it for a different reason — seeking capital above all else — but the end result is the same. Any organization that gathers enough power would be capable of bringing about a Chinese Great Leap Forward, a Soviet Holodomor, or a German Holocaust. Some of the worst abuses in history were made possible by the invention of the corporation. Ever hear of the East India Company? They are responsible for 100s of millions of deaths, many genocides, and the eradication of entire cultures. The difference is that we now regulate corporations to hopefully prevent this level of power and abuse. We seem to be moving towards a new era of East India Companies though, so I'm not sure why you think only a "government" could commit atrocities. Hell, the Irish famine was caused by the British adhering to free market principles. In that case corporations and the government teamed up together to kill 15% of the Irish population for no particularly good reason. Governments do not have a monopoly on atrocity. Edit: Nestlé probably has a bodycount approaching the governments you listed.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Some of the worst abuses in history were made possible by the invention of the corporation. Ever hear of the East India Company? They are responsible for 100s of millions of deaths, many genocides, and the eradication of entire cultures. “The corporation” in general is, and the British East India Company in particular was, a tool of government, not an opposing force.

Xeoncross 4y ago

I'm not stating that we abolish government, just that 'checks and balances' are good for government. Unlimited government power has historically been, well, terrorizing for citizens in the same ways as large crime groups - but far more deadly.

ilyt 4y ago
There in general needs to be more accountability for people in power, instead we got reverse, the richer and more powerful someone is the less punishment they get for fuckups (unless they fuck up with wrong people's money I guess). Hell, politician can lie their way to power, realize nothing of what they promise and still somehow not lose the "job"
robryk 4y ago
In that case it's hard to say which deaths are "caused by government". If a government could have imposed a policy that prevented them, are they caused by government? Should we balance that against side effects of such a policy? What about side effects of a feasible way of arriving at such a policy? If we want to discount such deaths as caused by the government, we will end up with lots of cases of "would not happen but for policy X, but policy Y would have prevented them". From some POV _every single death_ is somehow caused by some policy that's government-imposed. To have a reasonable way to define "caused by government" we need to have something to compare with.