4 ms·

John Oliver covered this, "Guardianship" scam, theft enabled by the government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG2pEffLEJo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG2p

by gowld 4y ago

John Oliver covered this, "Guardianship" scam, theft enabled by the government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG2pEffLEJo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG2pEffLEJo It is similar to the PACE scam, where government lets a company steal someone's house with a fake "energy credit" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv8ZPFOxJEc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv8ZPFOxJEc https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/how-do-i-avoid-risks-and-scams-with-pace-loans-en-2129/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/how-do-i-avoid-risk... Stuff like this turns me Anarchist in the "Government can't work" sense. The criminals are always 10 steps ahead of (or in cahoots with) the government, turning every attempt at "promoting the general welfare" into highway robbery, and no one in government is willing to prosecute and convict these criminals, because white collar crime gets the "it's too complicated to explain" Get Out of Jail Free card.

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
I would be lying if I said the situation didn't inspire urges of vigilantism in me at the time. The government is a very, very scary thing. Because I'm disabled, I've had many encounters with the faceless and all powerful hand of the government, sometimes it feels like they'd want a medical certificate just to allow people like me to keep breathing. But paradoxically, I believe in a fairly strong government, I think it's best to have an organization at the top which is explicitly defined to serve the need of the people, rather than whatever would rise to the top in its stead. As long as one remains aware of how terrifying the government can be and is willing to go out and throw a few bricks at government buildings. I think it's served us well, comparing my country to the rest of the word.
- dwallin 4y ago
  Yeah, agreed. The mistake a lot of individuals make when they fall in the intellectual trap of Libertarianism is that power doesn't care about labels. Sure the state "has a monopoly on violence" but that is not an intrinsic thing. A weak state quickly finds violence being adopted by other centers of power within a society (just look at Haiti). We attempt to concentrate certain powers in government because it's the easiest way to keep those powers in check. In the end you don't want any center of power to get too powerful as it makes systems overall less stable. The best counter for a strong government is strong civic engagement and democratic norms as government is need to act as a counter to private centralized power (both legal and extralegal).
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Sometimes the easiest way to keep the powers and check are to simply not grant them to the state. Some problems are better solved by decentralized power, even if it is imperfect and has collateral damage.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Sometimes is a real weasel word here. The unfortunate truth is we can’t trust government, but every other option tends to be vastly worse. Government contractors introduce horrible conflicts of interest at every level. The US used to get projects done early and under budget before contracting took over, but that doesn’t make anyone wealthy. Private individuals run into the tragedy of the commons. etc etc
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I dont think it is clear at all that every option in worse. You might make a case that federal employees would do better than 3rd parties, but this beside the point I am trying to make. You cant have abusive legal guardianships without state involvement, contractors or not.
        Retric 4y ago
        Abusive legal guardianships demonstrate we can’t trust individuals not just the government. So, my point is if you can’t trust people, companies, or the government then what’s left? IMO, the best option is to simply limit the number of things we need to trust. You don’t need to trust news organizations for them to act as a balance on government corruption. That only goes so far, but it’s still useful.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I also agree with limiting the number of individuals or institutions you have to rely on and Trust. In this case, if durable legal guardianship against the wishes of the ward did not exist, there would be no need to trust anyone, the government or otherwise. To be clear, what I'm proposing in this case is that nobody can have their assets seized without their permission. Similarly, I don't have to invest trust in my underwear stain inspector, governmental or otherwise because nobody has the right to stop me inspect my underwear.

by gowld 4y ago

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago

I would be lying if I said the situation didn't inspire urges of vigilantism in me at the time. The government is a very, very scary thing. Because I'm disabled, I've had many encounters with the faceless and all powerful hand of the government, sometimes it feels like they'd want a medical certificate just to allow people like me to keep breathing. But paradoxically, I believe in a fairly strong government, I think it's best to have an organization at the top which is explicitly defined to serve the need of the people, rather than whatever would rise to the top in its stead. As long as one remains aware of how terrifying the government can be and is willing to go out and throw a few bricks at government buildings. I think it's served us well, comparing my country to the rest of the word.

dwallin 4y ago
Yeah, agreed. The mistake a lot of individuals make when they fall in the intellectual trap of Libertarianism is that power doesn't care about labels. Sure the state "has a monopoly on violence" but that is not an intrinsic thing. A weak state quickly finds violence being adopted by other centers of power within a society (just look at Haiti). We attempt to concentrate certain powers in government because it's the easiest way to keep those powers in check. In the end you don't want any center of power to get too powerful as it makes systems overall less stable. The best counter for a strong government is strong civic engagement and democratic norms as government is need to act as a counter to private centralized power (both legal and extralegal).
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Sometimes the easiest way to keep the powers and check are to simply not grant them to the state. Some problems are better solved by decentralized power, even if it is imperfect and has collateral damage.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Sometimes is a real weasel word here. The unfortunate truth is we can’t trust government, but every other option tends to be vastly worse. Government contractors introduce horrible conflicts of interest at every level. The US used to get projects done early and under budget before contracting took over, but that doesn’t make anyone wealthy. Private individuals run into the tragedy of the commons. etc etc
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I dont think it is clear at all that every option in worse. You might make a case that federal employees would do better than 3rd parties, but this beside the point I am trying to make. You cant have abusive legal guardianships without state involvement, contractors or not.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Abusive legal guardianships demonstrate we can’t trust individuals not just the government. So, my point is if you can’t trust people, companies, or the government then what’s left? IMO, the best option is to simply limit the number of things we need to trust. You don’t need to trust news organizations for them to act as a balance on government corruption. That only goes so far, but it’s still useful.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I also agree with limiting the number of individuals or institutions you have to rely on and Trust. In this case, if durable legal guardianship against the wishes of the ward did not exist, there would be no need to trust anyone, the government or otherwise. To be clear, what I'm proposing in this case is that nobody can have their assets seized without their permission. Similarly, I don't have to invest trust in my underwear stain inspector, governmental or otherwise because nobody has the right to stop me inspect my underwear.