3 ms·

In the absence of government intervention, wealth is more likely to tend toward the center. The issue is that any democratic form of government featuring any ki

In the absence of government intervention, wealth is more likely to tend toward the center. The issue is that any democratic form of government featuring any kind of legislature reliant on voting will be bought. First, large companies will want small little advantages like a new road to their factory. Overtime, it becomes massive like immunity from prosecution from drugs that kill people like opioids. Over time, these companies receiving benefits become indistinguishable from the government itself and drive nearly all policy like Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed, JP Morgan, Goldman, etc. Generally, all attempts to stop this are subverted and used to the benefit of these megacorporations via riders on any such bill introduced by politicians who’re on the take. Further, the agencies tasked with enforcement of any regulation usually have people who previously worked at these companies or who hope to work at them in the future on their staff. Humans respond to incentives, and all incentives line up toward the merger of corporation and state in a democracy. I’d like to see a free market democracy that lacks corporate personhood to see if that changes the structure, but a human life isn’t long enough to really witness such a thing.

coldtea 3y ago
>In the absence of government intervention, wealth is more likely to tend toward the center. The issue is that any democratic form of government featuring any kind of legislature reliant on voting will be bought. Every non-democratic form will be bought even faster, if it's not operated directly by the "buyers" in the first place. Though I doubt that "in the absence of government intervention, wealth is more likely to tend toward the center". There are dozens of ways for the rich to get richer and fuck the poor/center over without government intervention. In a more anarchic, no-government-at-all situation, for an extreme example, they are the ones to afford the best mercernaries and dictate terms...
- BirAdam 3y ago
  My argument is not that any government or no government is better than another, but rather that this form of corruption is unavoidable in democracies. As for anarchy, yes, you could have more or worse violent action, but the type you cite is directly how the current system works. In the USA, the US and its states have the greatest military strength and therefore set the terms. They also engage in military action on behalf of corporations like United Fruit, Coca-Cola, Exon, etc. The argument that "in the absence of a government the warlords would take over" ignores that the warlords are already in power. Further, I at no point advocated for anarchy. I merely stated that in the absence of government intervention, wealthy is more likely to tend toward the center. In the USA, the wealth gap has widened as government intervention in the market has increased and that is the basis of evidence for my argument. Today, the richest and poorest are further apart that any prior time in US history, and law/regulation is and has been in continuous expansion not retraction.
flagrant_taco 3y ago
Corruption happens under any form of government, it doesn't require democracy. The risk for corruption is always there when power is centralized, the more you centralize the more incentive there is. If anything democracy has only shown that it isn't a magic bullet for corruption. Part of the goal is that oversight by the voting public will eventually weed out the corrupt, that works somewhat and should certainly be better than no oversight from other forms of government.
- BirAdam 3y ago
  I do not disagree with your first part. The second part, I would argue has been proven false. Voting changes nothing, and I dare say that were voting capable of changing anything, it'd be illegal. Obama and Trump both said they were antiwar and would end war, neither did. All of the Presidents of my life time have spoken against large deficit spending except for Clinton and Biden, and hilariously, only Clinton ever made any real progress on that front. The people are generally against the drug war, no change. The people are generally against mass incarceration, no change. The people are generally against corporate/government collusion, no change. The people have generally been against bailouts, no change.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Oh we're 100% on the same page. I whole heartedly believe the ideals behind democracy are meant to keep power in check, but we lost that before I was born. I'd argue that I've never truly lived in a democracy, but I hope to one day. It's a system I would fight for if there were actually a semblance of a movement willing to stand up and say enough is enough. So far though I've been a bit sad, or maybe just disappointed, to see that the vast majority of our people don't seem interested in democracy, liberty, or individual freedoms.
    - BirAdam 3y ago
      Most people only “believe” in democracy when they’re on the winning side of an election. Later, when the elected individual doesn’t live up to his/her campaign promises everyone seems to have amnesia and they go right back to the polls.
PixyMisa 3y ago
Corporate personhood is a legal fiction that allows corporations to own property and be sued. It dates back to craft guilds in the bronze age. I'm not sure what alternative you envision.
- logicchains 3y ago
  Corporate personhood is used to shield people from persecution for things they'd be persecuted for doing as private individuals. If there was no corporate liability shield, every single drug company employee involved in knowingly marketing and distributing harmful opiates could potentially be sued; no longer could people use "I was just following orders" as an excuse.
- BirAdam 3y ago
  Sue the owners of corporations when they break laws. That’s my alternative vision. Why did no board members of major tobacco companies have to face the consequences of their actions when they knowingly falsely advertised their product? Take away corporate personhood and make the owners face the music.

coldtea 3y ago

>In the absence of government intervention, wealth is more likely to tend toward the center. The issue is that any democratic form of government featuring any kind of legislature reliant on voting will be bought. Every non-democratic form will be bought even faster, if it's not operated directly by the "buyers" in the first place. Though I doubt that "in the absence of government intervention, wealth is more likely to tend toward the center". There are dozens of ways for the rich to get richer and fuck the poor/center over without government intervention. In a more anarchic, no-government-at-all situation, for an extreme example, they are the ones to afford the best mercernaries and dictate terms...

BirAdam 3y ago
My argument is not that any government or no government is better than another, but rather that this form of corruption is unavoidable in democracies. As for anarchy, yes, you could have more or worse violent action, but the type you cite is directly how the current system works. In the USA, the US and its states have the greatest military strength and therefore set the terms. They also engage in military action on behalf of corporations like United Fruit, Coca-Cola, Exon, etc. The argument that "in the absence of a government the warlords would take over" ignores that the warlords are already in power. Further, I at no point advocated for anarchy. I merely stated that in the absence of government intervention, wealthy is more likely to tend toward the center. In the USA, the wealth gap has widened as government intervention in the market has increased and that is the basis of evidence for my argument. Today, the richest and poorest are further apart that any prior time in US history, and law/regulation is and has been in continuous expansion not retraction.

flagrant_taco 3y ago

Corruption happens under any form of government, it doesn't require democracy. The risk for corruption is always there when power is centralized, the more you centralize the more incentive there is. If anything democracy has only shown that it isn't a magic bullet for corruption. Part of the goal is that oversight by the voting public will eventually weed out the corrupt, that works somewhat and should certainly be better than no oversight from other forms of government.

BirAdam 3y ago
I do not disagree with your first part. The second part, I would argue has been proven false. Voting changes nothing, and I dare say that were voting capable of changing anything, it'd be illegal. Obama and Trump both said they were antiwar and would end war, neither did. All of the Presidents of my life time have spoken against large deficit spending except for Clinton and Biden, and hilariously, only Clinton ever made any real progress on that front. The people are generally against the drug war, no change. The people are generally against mass incarceration, no change. The people are generally against corporate/government collusion, no change. The people have generally been against bailouts, no change.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Oh we're 100% on the same page. I whole heartedly believe the ideals behind democracy are meant to keep power in check, but we lost that before I was born. I'd argue that I've never truly lived in a democracy, but I hope to one day. It's a system I would fight for if there were actually a semblance of a movement willing to stand up and say enough is enough. So far though I've been a bit sad, or maybe just disappointed, to see that the vast majority of our people don't seem interested in democracy, liberty, or individual freedoms.
  - BirAdam 3y ago
    Most people only “believe” in democracy when they’re on the winning side of an election. Later, when the elected individual doesn’t live up to his/her campaign promises everyone seems to have amnesia and they go right back to the polls.

PixyMisa 3y ago

Corporate personhood is a legal fiction that allows corporations to own property and be sued. It dates back to craft guilds in the bronze age. I'm not sure what alternative you envision.

logicchains 3y ago
Corporate personhood is used to shield people from persecution for things they'd be persecuted for doing as private individuals. If there was no corporate liability shield, every single drug company employee involved in knowingly marketing and distributing harmful opiates could potentially be sued; no longer could people use "I was just following orders" as an excuse.
BirAdam 3y ago
Sue the owners of corporations when they break laws. That’s my alternative vision. Why did no board members of major tobacco companies have to face the consequences of their actions when they knowingly falsely advertised their product? Take away corporate personhood and make the owners face the music.