4 ms·

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple. The government is both a kind of "autonomous entity" with serving self-interests

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple. The government is both a kind of "autonomous entity" with serving self-interests AND something somewhat controlled by the public (not just by voting: also by the mere fact that it involves thousands of people, has to balance different interests, is bounded by specific procedures, it needs a level of constent for it's actions, etc). To put it this way, from all the entities out there, the government is the more accountable. You think the government serves some big interests (big corporations etc?). It sure does. But a country only at the mercy of private interests, without a mediator like a democratic government, would be intolerable. Actually it would be like what it's in some Banana Republics, where the "government" is essentially a front for corporations and private interests. That said, the government (any government) is also the scum of the earth, especially went left to rule without vigilance. Sponsors and big interests come into play and bureaucracy wants to increase its reach and rule as far as it can. And of course government wants to justify itself and its actions, hence the "official version of history", in which the nuclear bombs "ended the war" (whereas Japan, a nation collapsed and willing to sign a peace treaty was nuked just so that US could showcase the new bombs and send a message to the Reds for the post-war state of things). Or in which "Pearl Harbor" was ..."unprovoked" (whereas the US presidency did all it could before it happened to ensure a war with Japan). Of course the Japanese have their own "official history", in which they didn't do anything bad in Manchuria and Korea (where they enslaved, raped, torture, and genocide-like killed thousands of people).

baddox 14y ago
The only issue I have with your characterization of government is that you make too much of a distinction between "the government" and any other organization of individuals, such as a corporation or business. What you call a democratic government is still less accountable than a normal capitalistic business, and I'll argue that the government is strictly less accountable, because the government is the only organization (with a few potential counter examples) that can and does use a massive campaign of organized violence to maintain and exercise power. The ability to vote is no more powerful in affecting government as the ability to choose who to engage in commerce with is in affecting businesses. But businesses don't get to use violence to earn revenue, public schools to indoctrinate children (which is way more effective than advertisements), welfare and retirement campaigns to incentivize government dependence, etc.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >The only issue I have with your characterization of government is that you make too much of a distinction between "the government" and any other organization of individuals, such as a corporation or business. In my opinion, they are not even close. A corporation or a business is accountable to its shareholders but not to society at large. And it's mostly accountable to shareholders in the "get us more money" way, and not the "be ethical and do good" way. A corporation is only accountable to society in as much as they are accountable to the law (passed by the government). Note that in most cases you cannot even "vote with your wallet". For one, because the harm they do might happen thousands of miles away from where consumers are (as it often happens) so buyers don't care. For another, because even if the harm is domestic, it doesn't necessarily affect the same people as those buying (e.g, treating workers badly or dumping toxic waste in a river in South Dakota doesn't directly affect consumers in the rest of the 50 states). >What you call a democratic government is still less accountable than a normal capitalistic business, and I'll argue that the government is strictly less accountable, because the government is the only organization (with a few potential counter examples) that can and does use a massive campaign of organized violence to maintain and exercise power The difference is that the government must balance millions of expectations and demands, whereas a corporation does not. A government must at some deegree satisfy it's voters, must keep the main opposition at bay, must be accountable to foreign powers (diplomatic agreements, ecological treaties etc), cannot favor a corporation or a lobby too much because of counter-action of opposed lobbies, etc. Plus there are binding documents it has to follow to some deegree, from the constitution to common law. A company has far fewer such restraints. Especially a global one.

baddox 14y ago

The only issue I have with your characterization of government is that you make too much of a distinction between "the government" and any other organization of individuals, such as a corporation or business. What you call a democratic government is still less accountable than a normal capitalistic business, and I'll argue that the government is strictly less accountable, because the government is the only organization (with a few potential counter examples) that can and does use a massive campaign of organized violence to maintain and exercise power. The ability to vote is no more powerful in affecting government as the ability to choose who to engage in commerce with is in affecting businesses. But businesses don't get to use violence to earn revenue, public schools to indoctrinate children (which is way more effective than advertisements), welfare and retirement campaigns to incentivize government dependence, etc.

pretoriusB 14y ago
>The only issue I have with your characterization of government is that you make too much of a distinction between "the government" and any other organization of individuals, such as a corporation or business. In my opinion, they are not even close. A corporation or a business is accountable to its shareholders but not to society at large. And it's mostly accountable to shareholders in the "get us more money" way, and not the "be ethical and do good" way. A corporation is only accountable to society in as much as they are accountable to the law (passed by the government). Note that in most cases you cannot even "vote with your wallet". For one, because the harm they do might happen thousands of miles away from where consumers are (as it often happens) so buyers don't care. For another, because even if the harm is domestic, it doesn't necessarily affect the same people as those buying (e.g, treating workers badly or dumping toxic waste in a river in South Dakota doesn't directly affect consumers in the rest of the 50 states). >What you call a democratic government is still less accountable than a normal capitalistic business, and I'll argue that the government is strictly less accountable, because the government is the only organization (with a few potential counter examples) that can and does use a massive campaign of organized violence to maintain and exercise power The difference is that the government must balance millions of expectations and demands, whereas a corporation does not. A government must at some deegree satisfy it's voters, must keep the main opposition at bay, must be accountable to foreign powers (diplomatic agreements, ecological treaties etc), cannot favor a corporation or a lobby too much because of counter-action of opposed lobbies, etc. Plus there are binding documents it has to follow to some deegree, from the constitution to common law. A company has far fewer such restraints. Especially a global one.