5 ms·

Reading disturbing articles like this, my thoughts race to the conclusion that the federal government has grown too large. It now seems only interested in crus

Reading disturbing articles like this, my thoughts race to the conclusion that the federal government has grown too large. It now seems only interested in crushing opposition and growing larger. The fact that the executive (Obama) administration was cited does not seem to me to be inappropriate: they are the face and mouthpiece of government. Perhaps consider the possible negatives (tyranny) that can come with a growing central government

chrischen 13y ago
The problem you describe is not intrinsic to governments, it's intrinsic to any powerful entity. If the government were weak, then corporations would take its place in abusing power. The key is to create a system where it's very difficult for any single entity to gain power outside of their niche or purpose. The system of checks and balances in government was designed for this purpose.
- aric 13y ago
  "Corporations" are a protected class. Corporations are able to exploit society, buffering themselves from many forms of recourse - not unlike any powerful government - specifically because they hold position as a protected class. The entity known as a "corporation" is granted the security of police and military systems thanks to the rule of corporate law. I agree with you on the first part but let me interject a disagreement. Corruption seems intrinsic to any powerful entity, yes. However, it's important to recognize the fact that business entities in and of themselves are not powerful. They are not powerful without a societal structure that ensures that corporate law is enforced as "the rule of law." Translation: artificial entities - corporations - are only powerful because of consolidated government power. The problem isn't that corporations would take the place of abusing power. That's somewhat of a misconception. In a humane government with a free market, corporations would not exist. The protected entity could not exist. The larger problem is that the structure of governance we have does not go far enough to preserve the freedom of people, nor does it go far enough to compartmentalize most forms of the collective force it wields. Corporatism stands in strict contradiction to humanitarianism, freedom, and free and open markets. Yet it is the model of this government. The checks and balances that exist are rather superficial. Oligarchical mob rule exists. Some euphemistically call it a representative democracy. Abuse isn't the fault of [business entities] per se. That's the cough. It's the fault of the structure of government. That's the body. -- Wars of luxury and aggression. -- Surveillance states. -- Prison industry with dependent economies. -- War industry with dependent economies. -- Assault on civil liberties. -- Loss of human freedom to manufactured "law." -- Killing and dropping bombs on people and groups in the name of security. -- Secret organizations plundering and abusing the public. -- Loss of due process. -- The war on humanity... It continues. There are reasons in the scope of human history for so much suffering, in light of the lack of information that people had at their disposal combined with the technologies and tribalism that drive people into seeking power, security, and fortune. Though there are no arguable defenses for the structure we have that continues the bloodshed, in light of the connected world that grows, and a trend toward seeking transparency amid the every-growing classification and hiding from the public trust. There are no arguable defenses other than the chain of succession, the companies, the propaganda, and the millions of Americans whose paychecks and careers depend on this apparatus of exploitation. It has consolidated enough power to get to this point where rendering it undone is the fantastical proposition it once was: a feat for humanitarian activists. Where are the checks and balances? Why did this system fail people to such a large degree? One of the largest structural failures is when consolidated power is granted the ability to levy taxes: forced funding. It ensures that no one can disassociate physically or economically. Forced funding ensures that no one may engage in any practical form of disobedience beyond the last remaining threads of freedom of speech and any semblance of good left in the human spirit that is willing to engage in conscientious objection and civil disobedience. Forced funding ensures over the long haul that everything else will fall into play. Guaranteed revenue manifests the artifices used by power to sustain itself. This is why all forms of governance that rely on it: corporatism, socialism, communism, and flavors therein are inhumane and prone to failure into various states of fascist governance. They all surrender the people's own voluntary choices and labor unto a Cesar. The US Consitution didn't have enough language to protect people from its government. The idea was grand at the time. Though it didn't save people from the long-term threat of Congress. The federation should have only existed in the role of its Bill of Rights. A small central power, 535 people in Congress, should never have been granted ownership over the labor and humanity of so great number of people, 300 million people now. It is un-fixable for now. The article suggests at the end that the particular issue of persecuting people who reveal information points to a much larger systemic failure. It is, indeed, a systemic failure.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    I had a hard time understanding most of what you wrote, but "They are not powerful without a societal structure that ensures that corporate law is enforced as "the rule of law." What are the cartels in Mexico then? I would argue that that's what corporations would look like if they could no longer depend on the rule of law and government to protect some of their interests. It's true, US Corporations depend on the government's power for some of their enforcement and structure, but US corporations still wield significant power that could be abused. If the government went away, they'd just use that power to defend themselves and we'd end up with violence, intimidation, etc, like you see in cartels. Corporations don't completely rely on the government. Apple has billions in cash reserves and in the end it's the money that counts.
    - aric 13y ago
      I don't advocate for disbanding the "rule of law." I'm not sure why that wasn't clear. Please forgive the misunderstanding. I advocate for the rule of law being limited back into the original noble intent the Bill of Rights had, along with other changes. The government in a heavily limited role can be more powerful (in the sense of justification) if its primary role is one of humanitarianism. Governmental collective force and democratized architectures for assembly would still exist to protect people from violence. I'm not advocating for the government to go away. I've been saying nearly the opposite. It has to change. It has to reform toward humanitarian principles with more voluntaryist structures. "Corporations" would not exist. The availability of power would be dramatically reduced to the actions of people. Couple that with a more humane justice system where the threat of caging, literally stuffing a person into a cell, could only be the recourse for containing unwieldy, physically violent people. I digress. The net positive of not having protected classes is numerous. More people are able to enter the market and empower themselves (e.g. no threat of patents, which could not exist). And the risk for undertaking dangerous activities grows higher. This induces a tendency toward natural regulation, because the threat of civil justice and recourse becomes higher for those who engage in exploitative behavior without gaining explicit consent from their customers or the people and lands they affect. The US economy has never experienced this healthy abstraction. All we have is heavily-regulated markets within corporatism, which the biggest corporations thrive on. It guarantees the crushing of most small competitors. Of course, the internet was one of the most disrupting and democratizing forces to combat this unnatural market. Yet, as we all know, the internet is still not yet empowering enough compared to artificial entities known as "patents" that only exist thanks to corporatism, granting the full weight of police force to enforce the decree of big business. That's the real abuse of power. That's what we have today. You mention Mexican drug cartels. They are largely the result of US policy. The "war" on drugs is a war on people and choice. Like any prohibition of people's consensual choices, this war on people directly forms the foundation of strong, well-funded underground economies with a nearly guaranteed revenue stream. Yes, often the leadership of these organizations care less about humanity and more about profit. It sounds familiar.
- argumentum 13y ago
  Abuse of power isn't intrinsic to government, but there's a huge difference between the type of power that the State can abuse vs private corporations. 1. Your association with private corporations is voluntary, unlike (for the large part) your association with government. 2. The State can and will use physical force and threats thereof to enforce it's authority. To the extent Corporations abuse power ungoverned by the free market, they do so primarily via association with government.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    But power is power. There's no difference except that the government is given by default certain powers most corporations don't have. However, corporations can still do assassinations, espionage, or even spying on customers. As long as the corporation is capable of doing it, and has ways of hiding it, then it can also be done.
    - aric 13y ago
      There's a clear difference in power between power that controls police and military systems vs. power that's limited by the controls of natural, voluntary actions. I can't blame you for equating corporations with government and suggesting they both have unbridled power, given the current systems most of us live in. But it's absolutely wrong to infer that actions that would otherwise be illegal/violent by organizations are the equivalent of violent actions set into government policy. Again, the largest corporations many fear have disproportionate influence and market share specifically because of the backing of government law. For instance: When a group or psychopath commits mass murder, yes, it is a form of power. Yet, it's relatively contained. Society is more able to fight it and reject it. However, when a government that relies on involuntary funding commits mass murder - under the auspices of formal policy and fancy language - it becomes a form of power that society is less able to reject.
      - chrischen 13y ago
        Power by definition, is something you can't reject. Otherwise you technically don't have the power... I'd say the Mexican drug cartels are de-facto examples of private corporations when they don't or can't rely on government to give them their power.
peterwwillis 13y ago
"the federal government has grown too large. It now seems only interested in crushing opposition" What opposition? There is no alternative body to the federal government other than state government, and the fed doesn't really have to crush what it already controls and governs. An alternative opposition is "the people", which would be hilarious as the federal government is for the people, represented and run by the people. I find it fascinating when people basically claim that they, themselves, have grown too large and the people only seem interested in crushing opposition. If you'd ask 'what opposition is there to the people?' that answer is of course that the people oppose themselves. IMHO, whining about the government becoming too big is like whining that your free beer isn't cold enough. Or a collective of chefs complaining that the food in the cafeteria sucks. Tyrrany is also not the only negative from a growing central government. It's complacency and capitulation that harm the most.

chrischen 13y ago

The problem you describe is not intrinsic to governments, it's intrinsic to any powerful entity. If the government were weak, then corporations would take its place in abusing power. The key is to create a system where it's very difficult for any single entity to gain power outside of their niche or purpose. The system of checks and balances in government was designed for this purpose.

aric 13y ago
"Corporations" are a protected class. Corporations are able to exploit society, buffering themselves from many forms of recourse - not unlike any powerful government - specifically because they hold position as a protected class. The entity known as a "corporation" is granted the security of police and military systems thanks to the rule of corporate law. I agree with you on the first part but let me interject a disagreement. Corruption seems intrinsic to any powerful entity, yes. However, it's important to recognize the fact that business entities in and of themselves are not powerful. They are not powerful without a societal structure that ensures that corporate law is enforced as "the rule of law." Translation: artificial entities - corporations - are only powerful because of consolidated government power. The problem isn't that corporations would take the place of abusing power. That's somewhat of a misconception. In a humane government with a free market, corporations would not exist. The protected entity could not exist. The larger problem is that the structure of governance we have does not go far enough to preserve the freedom of people, nor does it go far enough to compartmentalize most forms of the collective force it wields. Corporatism stands in strict contradiction to humanitarianism, freedom, and free and open markets. Yet it is the model of this government. The checks and balances that exist are rather superficial. Oligarchical mob rule exists. Some euphemistically call it a representative democracy. Abuse isn't the fault of [business entities] per se. That's the cough. It's the fault of the structure of government. That's the body. -- Wars of luxury and aggression. -- Surveillance states. -- Prison industry with dependent economies. -- War industry with dependent economies. -- Assault on civil liberties. -- Loss of human freedom to manufactured "law." -- Killing and dropping bombs on people and groups in the name of security. -- Secret organizations plundering and abusing the public. -- Loss of due process. -- The war on humanity... It continues. There are reasons in the scope of human history for so much suffering, in light of the lack of information that people had at their disposal combined with the technologies and tribalism that drive people into seeking power, security, and fortune. Though there are no arguable defenses for the structure we have that continues the bloodshed, in light of the connected world that grows, and a trend toward seeking transparency amid the every-growing classification and hiding from the public trust. There are no arguable defenses other than the chain of succession, the companies, the propaganda, and the millions of Americans whose paychecks and careers depend on this apparatus of exploitation. It has consolidated enough power to get to this point where rendering it undone is the fantastical proposition it once was: a feat for humanitarian activists. Where are the checks and balances? Why did this system fail people to such a large degree? One of the largest structural failures is when consolidated power is granted the ability to levy taxes: forced funding. It ensures that no one can disassociate physically or economically. Forced funding ensures that no one may engage in any practical form of disobedience beyond the last remaining threads of freedom of speech and any semblance of good left in the human spirit that is willing to engage in conscientious objection and civil disobedience. Forced funding ensures over the long haul that everything else will fall into play. Guaranteed revenue manifests the artifices used by power to sustain itself. This is why all forms of governance that rely on it: corporatism, socialism, communism, and flavors therein are inhumane and prone to failure into various states of fascist governance. They all surrender the people's own voluntary choices and labor unto a Cesar. The US Consitution didn't have enough language to protect people from its government. The idea was grand at the time. Though it didn't save people from the long-term threat of Congress. The federation should have only existed in the role of its Bill of Rights. A small central power, 535 people in Congress, should never have been granted ownership over the labor and humanity of so great number of people, 300 million people now. It is un-fixable for now. The article suggests at the end that the particular issue of persecuting people who reveal information points to a much larger systemic failure. It is, indeed, a systemic failure.
- chrischen 13y ago
  I had a hard time understanding most of what you wrote, but "They are not powerful without a societal structure that ensures that corporate law is enforced as "the rule of law." What are the cartels in Mexico then? I would argue that that's what corporations would look like if they could no longer depend on the rule of law and government to protect some of their interests. It's true, US Corporations depend on the government's power for some of their enforcement and structure, but US corporations still wield significant power that could be abused. If the government went away, they'd just use that power to defend themselves and we'd end up with violence, intimidation, etc, like you see in cartels. Corporations don't completely rely on the government. Apple has billions in cash reserves and in the end it's the money that counts.
  - aric 13y ago
    I don't advocate for disbanding the "rule of law." I'm not sure why that wasn't clear. Please forgive the misunderstanding. I advocate for the rule of law being limited back into the original noble intent the Bill of Rights had, along with other changes. The government in a heavily limited role can be more powerful (in the sense of justification) if its primary role is one of humanitarianism. Governmental collective force and democratized architectures for assembly would still exist to protect people from violence. I'm not advocating for the government to go away. I've been saying nearly the opposite. It has to change. It has to reform toward humanitarian principles with more voluntaryist structures. "Corporations" would not exist. The availability of power would be dramatically reduced to the actions of people. Couple that with a more humane justice system where the threat of caging, literally stuffing a person into a cell, could only be the recourse for containing unwieldy, physically violent people. I digress. The net positive of not having protected classes is numerous. More people are able to enter the market and empower themselves (e.g. no threat of patents, which could not exist). And the risk for undertaking dangerous activities grows higher. This induces a tendency toward natural regulation, because the threat of civil justice and recourse becomes higher for those who engage in exploitative behavior without gaining explicit consent from their customers or the people and lands they affect. The US economy has never experienced this healthy abstraction. All we have is heavily-regulated markets within corporatism, which the biggest corporations thrive on. It guarantees the crushing of most small competitors. Of course, the internet was one of the most disrupting and democratizing forces to combat this unnatural market. Yet, as we all know, the internet is still not yet empowering enough compared to artificial entities known as "patents" that only exist thanks to corporatism, granting the full weight of police force to enforce the decree of big business. That's the real abuse of power. That's what we have today. You mention Mexican drug cartels. They are largely the result of US policy. The "war" on drugs is a war on people and choice. Like any prohibition of people's consensual choices, this war on people directly forms the foundation of strong, well-funded underground economies with a nearly guaranteed revenue stream. Yes, often the leadership of these organizations care less about humanity and more about profit. It sounds familiar.
argumentum 13y ago
Abuse of power isn't intrinsic to government, but there's a huge difference between the type of power that the State can abuse vs private corporations. 1. Your association with private corporations is voluntary, unlike (for the large part) your association with government. 2. The State can and will use physical force and threats thereof to enforce it's authority. To the extent Corporations abuse power ungoverned by the free market, they do so primarily via association with government.
- chrischen 13y ago
  But power is power. There's no difference except that the government is given by default certain powers most corporations don't have. However, corporations can still do assassinations, espionage, or even spying on customers. As long as the corporation is capable of doing it, and has ways of hiding it, then it can also be done.
  - aric 13y ago
    There's a clear difference in power between power that controls police and military systems vs. power that's limited by the controls of natural, voluntary actions. I can't blame you for equating corporations with government and suggesting they both have unbridled power, given the current systems most of us live in. But it's absolutely wrong to infer that actions that would otherwise be illegal/violent by organizations are the equivalent of violent actions set into government policy. Again, the largest corporations many fear have disproportionate influence and market share specifically because of the backing of government law. For instance: When a group or psychopath commits mass murder, yes, it is a form of power. Yet, it's relatively contained. Society is more able to fight it and reject it. However, when a government that relies on involuntary funding commits mass murder - under the auspices of formal policy and fancy language - it becomes a form of power that society is less able to reject.
    - chrischen 13y ago
      Power by definition, is something you can't reject. Otherwise you technically don't have the power... I'd say the Mexican drug cartels are de-facto examples of private corporations when they don't or can't rely on government to give them their power.

peterwwillis 13y ago

"the federal government has grown too large. It now seems only interested in crushing opposition" What opposition? There is no alternative body to the federal government other than state government, and the fed doesn't really have to crush what it already controls and governs. An alternative opposition is "the people", which would be hilarious as the federal government is for the people, represented and run by the people. I find it fascinating when people basically claim that they, themselves, have grown too large and the people only seem interested in crushing opposition. If you'd ask 'what opposition is there to the people?' that answer is of course that the people oppose themselves. IMHO, whining about the government becoming too big is like whining that your free beer isn't cold enough. Or a collective of chefs complaining that the food in the cafeteria sucks. Tyrrany is also not the only negative from a growing central government. It's complacency and capitulation that harm the most.