3 ms·

It always comes down to the same proposition: do you want more prosperity? Very well then, all you have to do is let more businessmen break more laws. Never m

It always comes down to the same proposition: do you want more prosperity? Very well then, all you have to do is let more businessmen break more laws. Never mind the resulting discredit of civil authority, never mind the psychic despair caused by exposure to corruption, never even mind the fact that the prosperity never arrives because all the money is stolen -- which was the only purpose in the first place.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> do you want more prosperity? Very well then, all you have to do is let more businessmen break more laws If your society forces this trade-off, it fucked up at a fundamental level and will devolve into instability amidst declining living standards and the erosion of the rule of law. There is nothing inherent in prosperity that requires lawlessness. If anything, prosperity demands the rule of law and strong institutions; Somalia is no panacea. But innovation benefits from freedom. When that freedom is broad, prosperity occurs at scale. When it requires permission, whether by a monarch or by a bureaucrat, prosperity is more limited and making money despite the gatekeeper requires rulebreaking.
- FrankWilhoit 2y ago
  Business saw how well this strategy worked for police in the 1960s: if you want our help, you must make us unaccountable. Never mind the fact that then the help is no longer worth anything. By Gresham's Law of ideas, the concept of freedom has become a euphemism for unaccountability. The only freedom that anyone today understands is freedom from the rule of law.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Business saw how well this strategy worked for police in the 1960s: if you want our help, you must make us unaccountable This only works with natural monopoly. Business wants a monopoly isn’t exactly groundbreaking. > By Gresham's Law of ideas, the concept of freedom has become a euphemism for unaccountability “Gresham's Law of ideas” doesn’t make sense; ideas don’t have nominal value. Even if they did, your usage doesn’t work unless we conflate bad with popular, at which point the entire argument boils down to that which is popular is bad because it’s popular, which is freshman dorm room tautology.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> do you want more prosperity? Very well then, all you have to do is let more businessmen break more laws If your society forces this trade-off, it fucked up at a fundamental level and will devolve into instability amidst declining living standards and the erosion of the rule of law. There is nothing inherent in prosperity that requires lawlessness. If anything, prosperity demands the rule of law and strong institutions; Somalia is no panacea. But innovation benefits from freedom. When that freedom is broad, prosperity occurs at scale. When it requires permission, whether by a monarch or by a bureaucrat, prosperity is more limited and making money despite the gatekeeper requires rulebreaking.

FrankWilhoit 2y ago
Business saw how well this strategy worked for police in the 1960s: if you want our help, you must make us unaccountable. Never mind the fact that then the help is no longer worth anything. By Gresham's Law of ideas, the concept of freedom has become a euphemism for unaccountability. The only freedom that anyone today understands is freedom from the rule of law.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Business saw how well this strategy worked for police in the 1960s: if you want our help, you must make us unaccountable This only works with natural monopoly. Business wants a monopoly isn’t exactly groundbreaking. > By Gresham's Law of ideas, the concept of freedom has become a euphemism for unaccountability “Gresham's Law of ideas” doesn’t make sense; ideas don’t have nominal value. Even if they did, your usage doesn’t work unless we conflate bad with popular, at which point the entire argument boils down to that which is popular is bad because it’s popular, which is freshman dorm room tautology.