3 ms·

> It's not the job of the government, it's the job of citizens If only there was a system of government designed from first principles to reflect the will of t

by ajross 4y ago

> It's not the job of the government, it's the job of citizens If only there was a system of government designed from first principles to reflect the will of the people... This is just librarian tautology. It's not wrong, but any "citizen" organization you can imagine to implement whatever policy it is you want[1] is going to be isomorphic to a democratic government. [1] You skipped this part!

throwawaylinux 4y ago
The government looks after its own interests. That is what an institution does. A government isn't different than a corporation or any other organization this way. Delegating powers to a government for the common good does not change any of this. The people still have the job of ensuring the government carries that out properly because its priority is and always will be foremost itself, so the people have to ensure the government's interests coincide with their own. A government is not just some will-of-the-people-reflecting automaton that you can put in place then wash your hands of.
- sergiomattei 4y ago
  So does the private sector. At least the public has some say in governance. Who wins?
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    So does the private sector what? Did you only read and respond to the first sentence of my comment? I can't figure out what you're responding to.
  - chii 4y ago
    The private sector's interest aligns with the market, at least on the average, as long as they are not allowed to illegally obtain a monopoly. The market, then, is assumed to be rational on average, and thus all participants in the market would make decisions in their own best interest, and thus, obtain the best outcome for themselves that is possible. Those who do not choose optimally is then selected out by economic darwinian competition. The gov't has a role to play, but it does not follow that _more_ gov't regulation makes for a better society.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      This is because the private sector can't (for the most part) coerce you to deal with them. If the government can keep a lid on external costs, the private sector has to create value people want or they lose money and go away. The government can force you to give them your money and obey their laws. This is what makes them uniquely powerful and dangerous. In a democracy they do have to get your vote once in a while, but that's within a framework they mostly create and police, with extremely high barriers to entry and very little reward for doing "the right thing". It baffles and saddens me that otherwise thinking people can be so eager to hand power and authority to the government. I understand that -- after a lot of thought and reading and with much reluctance -- one could conclude that the government should be given a particular power because the alternatives are worse.
      - tappio 4y ago
        I think your last sentence hits the nail. We have to remember that "we" have selected the best of bad options. This system is not good and will get worse by time. People have to remember that we must not let power accumulate to specific groups, be it private or public sector. Unfortunately the tendency seems to be towards the opposite of what is "good" for average individuals. If government has too much power it cannot be held accountable, and the interests have disaligned.
    - tappio 4y ago
      This may be true in theory, but we are seeing rather different development in the West. 1) power seems to have a tendency to concentrate, which ultimately leads to corporate oligarchy. 2) most markets have high barrier to entry which breaks the alignment of market and interests 3) the concept of rational markets is not as clear cut as it is often perceived, and most studies have failed to incorporate findings from related to bounded rationality However, the government's incentive is to stay in power and not let that happen. The tool that government has is regulation.
    - stonogo 4y ago
      This assumption of a rational market has been fucking up people's lives for a long time now. What's it gonna take to put that conceit to bed?
  - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
    Corporations with regulatory capture
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  One of the problems that people forget about when designing their ideal political system is that the principal / agent problem is everywhere. When it comes to keeping your country (or region) livable, nothing beats personal engagement and a little vigilance.
AndrewKemendo 4y ago
There's more than two ways to organize human labor This false and defeatist dichotomy between Government dictatorships or Private dictatorships lays bare how truly depraved most thinking is around what constitutes human flourishing and liberty. Hence why I gave you that link
golergka 4y ago
> It's not wrong, but any "citizen" organization you can imagine to implement whatever policy it is you want[1] is going to be isomorphic to a democratic government. No. Government is a monopoly usurped by violence.

by ajross 4y ago

throwawaylinux 4y ago

The government looks after its own interests. That is what an institution does. A government isn't different than a corporation or any other organization this way. Delegating powers to a government for the common good does not change any of this. The people still have the job of ensuring the government carries that out properly because its priority is and always will be foremost itself, so the people have to ensure the government's interests coincide with their own. A government is not just some will-of-the-people-reflecting automaton that you can put in place then wash your hands of.

sergiomattei 4y ago
So does the private sector. At least the public has some say in governance. Who wins?
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  So does the private sector what? Did you only read and respond to the first sentence of my comment? I can't figure out what you're responding to.
- chii 4y ago
  The private sector's interest aligns with the market, at least on the average, as long as they are not allowed to illegally obtain a monopoly. The market, then, is assumed to be rational on average, and thus all participants in the market would make decisions in their own best interest, and thus, obtain the best outcome for themselves that is possible. Those who do not choose optimally is then selected out by economic darwinian competition. The gov't has a role to play, but it does not follow that _more_ gov't regulation makes for a better society.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    This is because the private sector can't (for the most part) coerce you to deal with them. If the government can keep a lid on external costs, the private sector has to create value people want or they lose money and go away. The government can force you to give them your money and obey their laws. This is what makes them uniquely powerful and dangerous. In a democracy they do have to get your vote once in a while, but that's within a framework they mostly create and police, with extremely high barriers to entry and very little reward for doing "the right thing". It baffles and saddens me that otherwise thinking people can be so eager to hand power and authority to the government. I understand that -- after a lot of thought and reading and with much reluctance -- one could conclude that the government should be given a particular power because the alternatives are worse.
    - tappio 4y ago
      I think your last sentence hits the nail. We have to remember that "we" have selected the best of bad options. This system is not good and will get worse by time. People have to remember that we must not let power accumulate to specific groups, be it private or public sector. Unfortunately the tendency seems to be towards the opposite of what is "good" for average individuals. If government has too much power it cannot be held accountable, and the interests have disaligned.
  - tappio 4y ago
    This may be true in theory, but we are seeing rather different development in the West. 1) power seems to have a tendency to concentrate, which ultimately leads to corporate oligarchy. 2) most markets have high barrier to entry which breaks the alignment of market and interests 3) the concept of rational markets is not as clear cut as it is often perceived, and most studies have failed to incorporate findings from related to bounded rationality However, the government's incentive is to stay in power and not let that happen. The tool that government has is regulation.
  - stonogo 4y ago
    This assumption of a rational market has been fucking up people's lives for a long time now. What's it gonna take to put that conceit to bed?
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  Corporations with regulatory capture
inglor_cz 4y ago
One of the problems that people forget about when designing their ideal political system is that the principal / agent problem is everywhere. When it comes to keeping your country (or region) livable, nothing beats personal engagement and a little vigilance.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago

There's more than two ways to organize human labor This false and defeatist dichotomy between Government dictatorships or Private dictatorships lays bare how truly depraved most thinking is around what constitutes human flourishing and liberty. Hence why I gave you that link

golergka 4y ago

> It's not wrong, but any "citizen" organization you can imagine to implement whatever policy it is you want[1] is going to be isomorphic to a democratic government. No. Government is a monopoly usurped by violence.