3 ms·
I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist. In certain situations, the business environment should be trusted to pursue their self-motivated interests because
by rexreed 14y ago
I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist. In certain situations, the business environment should be trusted to pursue their self-motivated interests because they are also the interests of consumers and the citizenry. In these cases, the government should not meddle.
However, in other situations, the business self-motivated interests are contradictory to those interests of their customers, employees, and their citizen neighbors. In these cases, the government needs to make sure that these businesses don't run amok and totally ruin the environment, the economy, and the market as a whole.
Those who take one extreme (no government intervention in either scenario -- what you call Libertarians) are no more virtuous that take the other extreme (the government must be involved in all forms of business activity). I hope we see more pragmatists and less dogma(tists) on HN. From what I can see -- these HN conversations do look balanced on the whole.
- parasubvert 14y agoI agree with your take, overall, thank you. Much more eloquently stated than my OP, but I had not seen the pro-owner view stated so I went a bit strong in my advocacy for that POV. Though I'm not sure I agree that HNers are particularly consistent on when they want government intervention. It seems driven from self-interest (intervene when it helps me, go away when it helps me).
- cloverich 14y ago> However, in other situations, the business self-motivated interests are contradictory to those interests of their customers, employees, and their citizen neighbors. In these cases, the government needs to make sure that these businesses don't run amok and totally ruin the environment, the economy, and the market as a whole. I dont think that's how many on HN view it and also to the point: The bargaining chips Jobs is using to promote these anti-competitive practices only exist because of government intervention. If the government is going to provide companies with an effective monopoly (patents), under the argument that it (allegedly) promotes innovation, then they should be held accountable for balancing those forces when they are abused (in this case, abusing workers). I dont think that's contradictory in a "Pro when it helps me, anti when it hurts me way". Take out the Patents, and the problem (arguably) goes away entirely.
- parasubvert 14y agoAnti trust, unenforceable anti-compete and anti-solicitation agreements also only exist because of government intervention.