4 ms·

In general governments have done far more harm to individuals than anyone in the market. The job of the government is to protect your individual rights not the

In general governments have done far more harm to individuals than anyone in the market. The job of the government is to protect your individual rights not the collective interest.

majormajor 4y ago
That's just quibbling over what "your individual rights" are; where does the line get drawn between "exercising my right" and "having my rights infringed on by the actions of another." There is no shortage of harm done by "anyone in the market" today, whether it's currently illegal and we call it "crime" instead of just a person exercising their freedom, or whether it's harm that isn't regulated today.
7e 4y ago
Promoting the general welfare is literally discussed in the first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights came later.
- clarkmoody 4y ago
  The Constitution is just a piece of paper. For every thousand steps the Congress, regulators, and state assemblies take in the direction of tyranny, the courts claw back one or two.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
piloto_ciego 4y ago
I don’t know that this is true. At very least they both share immense responsibility for causing individual harm. Sure the government may start a war, but that war can’t happen without bombs and bullets, and in America at least those factories aren’t run by the government. There is an intermediate step oftentimes, but I don’t think that necessarily disconnects companies from responsibility. If you work at a guided bomb factory you may not be the person dropping it, but you are responsible for the destruction it causes in a small way. Also, if global warming kills us all then it is likely that the oil companies bear some responsibility for it right? Government sucks - I agree with that statement, but we shouldn’t act like corporations are appreciably less responsible.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  The market responds to need. If nobody were able to socialise the cost of going in a foreign country and killing people, there would be no war. If the government didn't steal my money against my will on threat of incarceration, there is no way in hell I'd spend my money on bullets to kill someone's son in another country.
- fyloraspit 4y ago
  They are worse together. Achieving some fine balance of corporations may seem somewhat utopian but we are pretty far from utopia in the current day. Building a mega corporation without big government/s I would argue is basically impossible. And local level governance is more likely and potent without big government. Again though, all of that is quite hard to achieve / see how to achieve when people with existing power enjoy the status quo control more of the levers than the masses, including the ones used to influence the masses.
- logicchains 4y ago
  >I don’t know that this is true. In the 20th century governments slaughtered wholesale around 100 million of their own citizens (China, Russia, Cambodia), let alone those of other countries they killed in war. There's no measure by which the market comes anywhere near that amount of murder.
  - don_esteban 4y ago
    The market (german industrialists in case of Hitler, military-industrial complex in case of USA, East India Company in case of GB if you want to go deeper in history) has its quite significant share. Ignoring that is being willfully ideologically blind.
syzarian 4y ago
The absence of government just leads to a situation in which some group takes control of a given area. In effect government will then exist again. During the absence of government there will be chaos and rampant crime.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  I'd take a local firm offering to protect me for money over one that manages the large part of a continent. The small one will redistribute my money where I live at least. Besides, there is an alternative model where there are competing groups of people and I can pick the best among them based on price and services.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >Besides, there is an alternative model where there are competing groups of people and I can pick the best among them based on price and services. In the absence of government, what's stopping these groups from simply joining forces into a cartel, getting some armed thugs and making you an offer you can't refuse? History suggests that to be a far more likely scenario. Oligarchy, rather than competition, is the natural state of capitalism.
Quekid5 4y ago
I refer you to Thomas Midgley Jr.

In general governments have done far more harm to individuals than anyone in the market. The job of the government is to protect your individual rights not the collective interest.

majormajor 4y ago

That's just quibbling over what "your individual rights" are; where does the line get drawn between "exercising my right" and "having my rights infringed on by the actions of another." There is no shortage of harm done by "anyone in the market" today, whether it's currently illegal and we call it "crime" instead of just a person exercising their freedom, or whether it's harm that isn't regulated today.

7e 4y ago

Promoting the general welfare is literally discussed in the first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights came later.

clarkmoody 4y ago
The Constitution is just a piece of paper. For every thousand steps the Congress, regulators, and state assemblies take in the direction of tyranny, the courts claw back one or two.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

piloto_ciego 4y ago

I don’t know that this is true. At very least they both share immense responsibility for causing individual harm. Sure the government may start a war, but that war can’t happen without bombs and bullets, and in America at least those factories aren’t run by the government. There is an intermediate step oftentimes, but I don’t think that necessarily disconnects companies from responsibility. If you work at a guided bomb factory you may not be the person dropping it, but you are responsible for the destruction it causes in a small way. Also, if global warming kills us all then it is likely that the oil companies bear some responsibility for it right? Government sucks - I agree with that statement, but we shouldn’t act like corporations are appreciably less responsible.

jokethrowaway 4y ago
The market responds to need. If nobody were able to socialise the cost of going in a foreign country and killing people, there would be no war. If the government didn't steal my money against my will on threat of incarceration, there is no way in hell I'd spend my money on bullets to kill someone's son in another country.
fyloraspit 4y ago
They are worse together. Achieving some fine balance of corporations may seem somewhat utopian but we are pretty far from utopia in the current day. Building a mega corporation without big government/s I would argue is basically impossible. And local level governance is more likely and potent without big government. Again though, all of that is quite hard to achieve / see how to achieve when people with existing power enjoy the status quo control more of the levers than the masses, including the ones used to influence the masses.
logicchains 4y ago
>I don’t know that this is true. In the 20th century governments slaughtered wholesale around 100 million of their own citizens (China, Russia, Cambodia), let alone those of other countries they killed in war. There's no measure by which the market comes anywhere near that amount of murder.
- don_esteban 4y ago
  The market (german industrialists in case of Hitler, military-industrial complex in case of USA, East India Company in case of GB if you want to go deeper in history) has its quite significant share. Ignoring that is being willfully ideologically blind.

syzarian 4y ago

The absence of government just leads to a situation in which some group takes control of a given area. In effect government will then exist again. During the absence of government there will be chaos and rampant crime.

jokethrowaway 4y ago
I'd take a local firm offering to protect me for money over one that manages the large part of a continent. The small one will redistribute my money where I live at least. Besides, there is an alternative model where there are competing groups of people and I can pick the best among them based on price and services.
- krapp 4y ago
  >Besides, there is an alternative model where there are competing groups of people and I can pick the best among them based on price and services. In the absence of government, what's stopping these groups from simply joining forces into a cartel, getting some armed thugs and making you an offer you can't refuse? History suggests that to be a far more likely scenario. Oligarchy, rather than competition, is the natural state of capitalism.

Quekid5 4y ago

I refer you to Thomas Midgley Jr.