3 ms·

> The problem in the US isn't capitalism, it's that the government interferes extensively in the economy. Well... maybe the problem is that the economy interfe

> The problem in the US isn't capitalism, it's that the government interferes extensively in the economy. Well... maybe the problem is that the economy interferes extensively in the government. > Building a society is the responsibility of each individual who values it. Using government force in pursuit of that goal leads only to the co-option and disenfranchisement Simon complains about. Individuals have to band together to accomplish things because at some point one individual isn't enough. In democratic society such a banding, supported by the people and for the people, is called a government.

eudox 13y ago
>Well... maybe the problem is that the economy interferes extensively in the government. Well... maybe the government shouldn't have so much power that when influenced it can cause so much harm.
- pzuraq 13y ago
  If the government does not have power, someone else will. The governments power is meant to balance out the power of individuals, so that a few do not control society. I would argue that with that amount of power, government necessarily has the ability to cause harm to the economy/society. Otherwise it fails as a government. Stripping the government of power will do nothing. We must fix it.
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  If the government hadn't such power, no one would try to influence it.
patrickmay 13y ago
> In democratic society such a banding, supported by the people and for the people, is called a government. Only when the people banding together claim a monopoly on the use of force to achieve their goals. This is exactly the distinction that Bastiat describes.
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  I'll assume you live in the US: doesn't your constitution grant you the rights to bear arms and didn't one of the founder said it's the people's duty to throw away the government when it gets corrupted ? On a more "scholar" note there is the notion that a leviathan is needed. Moreover, I think private companies and individuals can be as violent, or more, than any government that claim monopoly on its use. Be it physically or symbolically.
rglovejoy 13y ago
> Individuals have to band together to accomplish things because at some point one individual isn't enough. In democratic society such a banding, supported by the people and for the people, is called a government. Individuals who band together to accomplish things can also be called a corporation.
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  No, because you missed "by the people, for the people" and the voting part. Do you genuinely fail to see the difference or is that comment just for the sake of that (weak) argument ?

eudox 13y ago

>Well... maybe the problem is that the economy interferes extensively in the government. Well... maybe the government shouldn't have so much power that when influenced it can cause so much harm.

pzuraq 13y ago
If the government does not have power, someone else will. The governments power is meant to balance out the power of individuals, so that a few do not control society. I would argue that with that amount of power, government necessarily has the ability to cause harm to the economy/society. Otherwise it fails as a government. Stripping the government of power will do nothing. We must fix it.
johnchristopher 13y ago
If the government hadn't such power, no one would try to influence it.

patrickmay 13y ago

> In democratic society such a banding, supported by the people and for the people, is called a government. Only when the people banding together claim a monopoly on the use of force to achieve their goals. This is exactly the distinction that Bastiat describes.

johnchristopher 13y ago
I'll assume you live in the US: doesn't your constitution grant you the rights to bear arms and didn't one of the founder said it's the people's duty to throw away the government when it gets corrupted ? On a more "scholar" note there is the notion that a leviathan is needed. Moreover, I think private companies and individuals can be as violent, or more, than any government that claim monopoly on its use. Be it physically or symbolically.

rglovejoy 13y ago

> Individuals have to band together to accomplish things because at some point one individual isn't enough. In democratic society such a banding, supported by the people and for the people, is called a government. Individuals who band together to accomplish things can also be called a corporation.

johnchristopher 13y ago
No, because you missed "by the people, for the people" and the voting part. Do you genuinely fail to see the difference or is that comment just for the sake of that (weak) argument ?