4 ms·

We used to have this and, well, it sucked. Turns out people are still extremely rich but in their own little governments - what we call corporations. This may

We used to have this and, well, it sucked. Turns out people are still extremely rich but in their own little governments - what we call corporations. This may seem like an improvement. But these people aren’t elected, so we’re back at square one minus the democracy part. We had less regulation, less rules, less taxation. People were poor. They were sick. They died when they shouldn’t have. They were illiterate. They were easily influenced. The economy suffered. Markets crashed. People lost their jobs. People starved. So we decided, “hm maybe that doesn’t work like we thought it did”. Pretty much everyone was on board. The government has many faults, yes, but many powers too. Power is distributed, and even you yourself hold some power. Having 20,000 people making decisions across 300 agencies sounds awful at first - but is having 10 people making decisions behind closed doors in a boardroom better?

_heimdall 2y ago
Comparing the present to the past depends entirely on where you set the point to compare against though. Go back further and we didn't really have corporations and most people worked for themselves and individuals that were much more independent. That was for both good and bad, like everything else. To compare where we are today only against a point in the past where we had massive corporations and little to no workers' rights feels like cherry picking. We have more options than massive government or massive, unregulated corporations.
- consteval 2y ago
  If you minimize the government that means you minimize regulations. That's an oxymoron - you want companies regulated, but nobody to regulate them? There are other options - a communist utopia, a zero-state solution. Somehow, I doubt that's what you're referring to. I admit, it is cherry-picking. But at least it's historically backed. You're also cherry-picking, but you're doing it on some hypothetical future that you're just imagining. I have zero reason to believe a smaller government makes things better. In fact, everyone has zero reason to believe that. So why try? Burning things done is lazy. Maintaining existing systems and improving them is both tedious and difficult, yes. But we have some baseline assurances down that path.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > There are other options - a communist utopia, a zero-state solution. Somehow, I doubt that's what you're referring to. Communism, and utopias, aren't really an option. Communism has never been tried, no one seems to get past the phase where a strongman in charges takes control of everything. Regardless of whether that's even what I wanted (it isn't) that doesn't work. > You're also cherry-picking, but you're doing it on some hypothetical future that you're just imagining. You're jumping timelines here though. I also cherry picked a point in the past that makes a better example for me, but I never talked about the future. I assume both of us have an expectation that our model could work in the future, but that's not really what we were talking about. For what its worth, I consider the future you prefer with an ever growing government attempting to create more and more regulation is just as unlikely as you think it is for us to be able to shrink the government.
    - consteval 2y ago
      I don’t think it’s unlikable at all for the government to shrink - in fact, I see it as very likely. But not for the reasons you think. I think it’s likely because the most powerful people in our society would become more powerful. Certainly, a return to few laws on labor and education would be extremely advantageous to the ruling class. Certainly, they desire children to work. Certainly, they desire pseudo-slavery. It’s a no-brainer for them to attempt to push things in that direction. All I know is, our quality of life has gone up significantly since regulations have increased. I think it’s plainly undeniable. You might claim it’s just correlation, and it would’ve happened anyway. But when you can trace specific lifestyle improvements, like being able to read, to specific pieces of legislation, I think that argument is lazy. You’re correct, we can’t know for sure. But for me, I consider the evidence strong enough.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        > But when you can trace specific lifestyle improvements, like being able to read, to specific pieces of legislation, I think that argument is lazy. What legislation are you talking about here? In general I'm all for regulations and laws that protect our rights from being taken from us and wary of laws that stop us from doing what we want (as long as what we want doesn't block others' rights). I've heard that distinction made before as additive versus subtractive laws. Now I can't remember which is which and I don't want to say it backwards, but the distinction of laws that preserve rights rather than impede free will is really important.

_heimdall 2y ago

Comparing the present to the past depends entirely on where you set the point to compare against though. Go back further and we didn't really have corporations and most people worked for themselves and individuals that were much more independent. That was for both good and bad, like everything else. To compare where we are today only against a point in the past where we had massive corporations and little to no workers' rights feels like cherry picking. We have more options than massive government or massive, unregulated corporations.

consteval 2y ago
If you minimize the government that means you minimize regulations. That's an oxymoron - you want companies regulated, but nobody to regulate them? There are other options - a communist utopia, a zero-state solution. Somehow, I doubt that's what you're referring to. I admit, it is cherry-picking. But at least it's historically backed. You're also cherry-picking, but you're doing it on some hypothetical future that you're just imagining. I have zero reason to believe a smaller government makes things better. In fact, everyone has zero reason to believe that. So why try? Burning things done is lazy. Maintaining existing systems and improving them is both tedious and difficult, yes. But we have some baseline assurances down that path.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > There are other options - a communist utopia, a zero-state solution. Somehow, I doubt that's what you're referring to. Communism, and utopias, aren't really an option. Communism has never been tried, no one seems to get past the phase where a strongman in charges takes control of everything. Regardless of whether that's even what I wanted (it isn't) that doesn't work. > You're also cherry-picking, but you're doing it on some hypothetical future that you're just imagining. You're jumping timelines here though. I also cherry picked a point in the past that makes a better example for me, but I never talked about the future. I assume both of us have an expectation that our model could work in the future, but that's not really what we were talking about. For what its worth, I consider the future you prefer with an ever growing government attempting to create more and more regulation is just as unlikely as you think it is for us to be able to shrink the government.
  - consteval 2y ago
    I don’t think it’s unlikable at all for the government to shrink - in fact, I see it as very likely. But not for the reasons you think. I think it’s likely because the most powerful people in our society would become more powerful. Certainly, a return to few laws on labor and education would be extremely advantageous to the ruling class. Certainly, they desire children to work. Certainly, they desire pseudo-slavery. It’s a no-brainer for them to attempt to push things in that direction. All I know is, our quality of life has gone up significantly since regulations have increased. I think it’s plainly undeniable. You might claim it’s just correlation, and it would’ve happened anyway. But when you can trace specific lifestyle improvements, like being able to read, to specific pieces of legislation, I think that argument is lazy. You’re correct, we can’t know for sure. But for me, I consider the evidence strong enough.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      > But when you can trace specific lifestyle improvements, like being able to read, to specific pieces of legislation, I think that argument is lazy. What legislation are you talking about here? In general I'm all for regulations and laws that protect our rights from being taken from us and wary of laws that stop us from doing what we want (as long as what we want doesn't block others' rights). I've heard that distinction made before as additive versus subtractive laws. Now I can't remember which is which and I don't want to say it backwards, but the distinction of laws that preserve rights rather than impede free will is really important.