3 ms·

"'Government is bad because it can be captured by malevolent interests', say malevolent interests involved in capturing government."

CamperBob2 2y ago
If it's not wrong -- which as we've all seen, it evidently isn't -- then what difference does it make who says it?
- philipov 2y ago
  Suppose I come to your house and start breaking your windows, and I tell you that you don't need windows because it's so easy for me to break them. Is that a good argument, or is the real problem the person that's breaking your windows? It's true that government is vulnerable to capture, but from that it does not follow that government is bad. It is more logical to conclude that the problem is unbounded personal enrichment allowing individuals to catapult themselves above the law. Corporations are the Roman Legions of the 21st century. Corporations are also vulnerable to capture, after all, and that is their default condition. Why should we not treat powerful conglomerate corporations with the same skepticism as governments, or armies? Their internal structure is an inefficient command economy, why is this not also treated as a problem? Their scale, diversification, and entrenchment, have all allowed them to escape the regulatory power of market competition.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    I can buy a Polestar or a VW or a Chevy instead of a Tesla, if I don't like the way Elon Musk runs his company. I have no such option if I don't like the way he runs the government. The problem isn't the wealth. The problem is the power.
    - philipov 2y ago
      Power follows wealth, regardless of whether there's a government or not, and while the economy is not a zero sum game, power is - economic inequality matters. The correlation between wealth and power is even stronger in countries where government is weak, and it is thus the function of government to prevent wealth from obtaining unchecked power. It is no wonder that wealth would seek to destroy government. That we appear to be losing this fight does not invalidate its importance. You may have your choice of oligarchs to buy your car from, but what they will never allow you is the choice to compete with them on a level playing field. A cartel can allow internal competition, but they will all cooperate to crush upstarts.
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        You may have your choice of oligarchs to buy your car from, but what they will never allow you is the choice to compete with them on a level playing field. A cartel can allow internal competition, but they will all cooperate to crush upstarts. It's government that interferes with competition, not "oligarchs" or "cartels." Otherwise I could buy a Chinese EV. The only way the "oligarchs" and the "cartels" can interfere with my decision is by using their wealth to capture and subvert the government. Again: the problem is the power.

CamperBob2 2y ago

If it's not wrong -- which as we've all seen, it evidently isn't -- then what difference does it make who says it?

philipov 2y ago
Suppose I come to your house and start breaking your windows, and I tell you that you don't need windows because it's so easy for me to break them. Is that a good argument, or is the real problem the person that's breaking your windows? It's true that government is vulnerable to capture, but from that it does not follow that government is bad. It is more logical to conclude that the problem is unbounded personal enrichment allowing individuals to catapult themselves above the law. Corporations are the Roman Legions of the 21st century. Corporations are also vulnerable to capture, after all, and that is their default condition. Why should we not treat powerful conglomerate corporations with the same skepticism as governments, or armies? Their internal structure is an inefficient command economy, why is this not also treated as a problem? Their scale, diversification, and entrenchment, have all allowed them to escape the regulatory power of market competition.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  I can buy a Polestar or a VW or a Chevy instead of a Tesla, if I don't like the way Elon Musk runs his company. I have no such option if I don't like the way he runs the government. The problem isn't the wealth. The problem is the power.
  - philipov 2y ago
    Power follows wealth, regardless of whether there's a government or not, and while the economy is not a zero sum game, power is - economic inequality matters. The correlation between wealth and power is even stronger in countries where government is weak, and it is thus the function of government to prevent wealth from obtaining unchecked power. It is no wonder that wealth would seek to destroy government. That we appear to be losing this fight does not invalidate its importance. You may have your choice of oligarchs to buy your car from, but what they will never allow you is the choice to compete with them on a level playing field. A cartel can allow internal competition, but they will all cooperate to crush upstarts.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      You may have your choice of oligarchs to buy your car from, but what they will never allow you is the choice to compete with them on a level playing field. A cartel can allow internal competition, but they will all cooperate to crush upstarts. It's government that interferes with competition, not "oligarchs" or "cartels." Otherwise I could buy a Chinese EV. The only way the "oligarchs" and the "cartels" can interfere with my decision is by using their wealth to capture and subvert the government. Again: the problem is the power.