3 ms·

I don’t really understand this perspective? I’m not a small government guy, I think the government ought to play an important role in providing a good regulator

I don’t really understand this perspective? I’m not a small government guy, I think the government ought to play an important role in providing a good regulatory framework and a strong social net. But if someone’s going to have direct power over my life, I’d much prefer a business owner or boss I can freely choose in principle rather than a government official who may not view me as part of their winning coalition.

yoyohello13 2mo ago
We seem to be quickly approaching, if we are not already there, a point where you can no longer choose to simply not associate with the billionaires anymore. They have such extreme access to resources and power they essentially control the direction of society whether we want them to or not.
quantified 2mo ago
How do you ever choose your boss at work? Never. Oh, by quitting that job and getting another? That's called "moving" when applied to politics. Which is super unattractive in much of regular life, unless you don't need people.
- slopinthebag 2mo ago
  Getting a new job is completely different from denouncing your citizenship and moving to a different country. Oh also there are no territories without government so you can’t even do that.
  - jhbadger 2mo ago
    You certainly don't need to "denounce your citizenship" to move to another country and work there - I strongly recommend that everybody live at least for a few years in another country for school or a job. Even if you end up settling back in your home country as I did, the experience is incredibly valuable as it teaches you how arbitrary so many of the customs you grew up with are.
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
  Most people change jobs much, much more frequently than they move between even states, much less countries. The latest cohorts for which we have full-career data held about 12 jobs over their lifetimes, and job hopping is much more normalized now than it used to be. Obviously it's hard enough that we all have to put up with some frustrations and inconveniences in our career, but it seems like it mostly works out. For example, I find it very annoying to have to fill out time cards or such, and other people find it very annoying to have any demands whatsoever on their time outside of core working hours. If we had to have a political debate about which is the one true working model, we'd get pretty worked up about it, and if I lost I'd go away bearing a pretty strong grudge about the daily annoyance that was inflicted on me against my will. Instead, there's some companies that do it one way and some that do it the other, and we self-sort between them according to our preferences.
- phil21 2mo ago
  > Which is super unattractive in much of regular life Which is, imo, one of the primary reasons of the stagnation of US society over the past 50 years. We are at all time lows for internal migration. This reduces dynamism drastically. People used to chase economic and social opportunity. Sometimes multiple times through a well lived life. The whole point of states was you could relatively trivially pull up stakes and move for better opportunity. Once people decided that was impossible (and historically speaking, it's actually less risky than ever before) things really went to shit. Overall and in generally speaking terms: US citizens have chosen comfort over every other metric when it comes to every single daily decision they make in aggregate.
preg_match 2mo ago
The flip of this is that businesses aren't elected, and you have no control over them. If they have a monopoly, then you're 100% fucked, you have no choice. And realistically, they don't require a monopoly. If there are 1000 competitors but they all have the same evil ideology at the helm, the result is identical. Your choice is now "flee the country". Except, wait no. Those companies have the entire western world by the balls. Want to avoid extreme surveillance from Google? Maybe there's a forest somewhere you can forage in.
- chermi 2mo ago
  If the government is in control, it's a sanctioned monopoly. You seem to be opposed to monopoly?
  - preg_match 2mo ago
    I really don't like this type of arguing where people try to play stupid. You know it's different, because you used the word "sanctioned". And this was really the whole point of my comment. We live in a representative democracy. We all have a choice in who we vote for, what polices we support. In addition, we have checks and balances in place to prevent the consolidation of power. The government is not "one thing", it's hundreds of things working together. Now, the system is not perfect, and I never claimed it to be. But compare this to how corporations functions. Corporations function as totalitarian dictatorships. You cannot vote. You have no influence. And they make decisions unilaterally, regardless of how harmful or stupid said decision may be. The arm in which we control corporations IS the government. It IS regulation. The only reason you're not working 80 hours a week and dying young is because of the government. Now, again, that doesn't mean the government is perfect. But those regulations were protested for and voted in by people just like you and me, and I think that's good. So sue me.
    - chermi 2mo ago
      You seem to be putting a lot of viewpoints on me I never proclaimed. That is not the only arm we control corporations with, corporations even die sometimes for doing the wrong thing. And voting internally is not the only way to change a corporations behavior. I think talking about them being a dictatorship is confusing the aspects we're talking about. I don't know when I said the government and corporations were the same thing when monopolies, but I still hold one is much more destructible than the other when they are properly separated (they aren't). I don't think markets and capitalism solve everything. I would say when democracy and capitalism are both working well (not right now) their combo is awesome. I don't think placing all blame on corporations is productive because it's a misdiagnosis. I am more afraid of the ratchet effect than I am of Google, but they both scare the shit out of me. Edit- I admit my original comment wasn't very good, I apologize.

yoyohello13 2mo ago

We seem to be quickly approaching, if we are not already there, a point where you can no longer choose to simply not associate with the billionaires anymore. They have such extreme access to resources and power they essentially control the direction of society whether we want them to or not.

quantified 2mo ago

How do you ever choose your boss at work? Never. Oh, by quitting that job and getting another? That's called "moving" when applied to politics. Which is super unattractive in much of regular life, unless you don't need people.

slopinthebag 2mo ago
Getting a new job is completely different from denouncing your citizenship and moving to a different country. Oh also there are no territories without government so you can’t even do that.
- jhbadger 2mo ago
  You certainly don't need to "denounce your citizenship" to move to another country and work there - I strongly recommend that everybody live at least for a few years in another country for school or a job. Even if you end up settling back in your home country as I did, the experience is incredibly valuable as it teaches you how arbitrary so many of the customs you grew up with are.
SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
Most people change jobs much, much more frequently than they move between even states, much less countries. The latest cohorts for which we have full-career data held about 12 jobs over their lifetimes, and job hopping is much more normalized now than it used to be. Obviously it's hard enough that we all have to put up with some frustrations and inconveniences in our career, but it seems like it mostly works out. For example, I find it very annoying to have to fill out time cards or such, and other people find it very annoying to have any demands whatsoever on their time outside of core working hours. If we had to have a political debate about which is the one true working model, we'd get pretty worked up about it, and if I lost I'd go away bearing a pretty strong grudge about the daily annoyance that was inflicted on me against my will. Instead, there's some companies that do it one way and some that do it the other, and we self-sort between them according to our preferences.
phil21 2mo ago
> Which is super unattractive in much of regular life Which is, imo, one of the primary reasons of the stagnation of US society over the past 50 years. We are at all time lows for internal migration. This reduces dynamism drastically. People used to chase economic and social opportunity. Sometimes multiple times through a well lived life. The whole point of states was you could relatively trivially pull up stakes and move for better opportunity. Once people decided that was impossible (and historically speaking, it's actually less risky than ever before) things really went to shit. Overall and in generally speaking terms: US citizens have chosen comfort over every other metric when it comes to every single daily decision they make in aggregate.

preg_match 2mo ago

The flip of this is that businesses aren't elected, and you have no control over them. If they have a monopoly, then you're 100% fucked, you have no choice. And realistically, they don't require a monopoly. If there are 1000 competitors but they all have the same evil ideology at the helm, the result is identical. Your choice is now "flee the country". Except, wait no. Those companies have the entire western world by the balls. Want to avoid extreme surveillance from Google? Maybe there's a forest somewhere you can forage in.

chermi 2mo ago
If the government is in control, it's a sanctioned monopoly. You seem to be opposed to monopoly?
- preg_match 2mo ago
  I really don't like this type of arguing where people try to play stupid. You know it's different, because you used the word "sanctioned". And this was really the whole point of my comment. We live in a representative democracy. We all have a choice in who we vote for, what polices we support. In addition, we have checks and balances in place to prevent the consolidation of power. The government is not "one thing", it's hundreds of things working together. Now, the system is not perfect, and I never claimed it to be. But compare this to how corporations functions. Corporations function as totalitarian dictatorships. You cannot vote. You have no influence. And they make decisions unilaterally, regardless of how harmful or stupid said decision may be. The arm in which we control corporations IS the government. It IS regulation. The only reason you're not working 80 hours a week and dying young is because of the government. Now, again, that doesn't mean the government is perfect. But those regulations were protested for and voted in by people just like you and me, and I think that's good. So sue me.
  - chermi 2mo ago
    You seem to be putting a lot of viewpoints on me I never proclaimed. That is not the only arm we control corporations with, corporations even die sometimes for doing the wrong thing. And voting internally is not the only way to change a corporations behavior. I think talking about them being a dictatorship is confusing the aspects we're talking about. I don't know when I said the government and corporations were the same thing when monopolies, but I still hold one is much more destructible than the other when they are properly separated (they aren't). I don't think markets and capitalism solve everything. I would say when democracy and capitalism are both working well (not right now) their combo is awesome. I don't think placing all blame on corporations is productive because it's a misdiagnosis. I am more afraid of the ratchet effect than I am of Google, but they both scare the shit out of me. Edit- I admit my original comment wasn't very good, I apologize.