4 ms·

I don't understand how that undermines the Libertarian point that if a government has no power to make the playing field uneven, it doesn't matter if it's corru

by jbellis 13y ago

I don't understand how that undermines the Libertarian point that if a government has no power to make the playing field uneven, it doesn't matter if it's corrupt.

MereInterest 13y ago
A government that does not have the power to make an even field uneven will also not have the power to make an uneven field even.
- angersock 13y ago
  Well put.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Also, a government suitably subject to democratic controls has a greater incentive to keep the fields level. That's true of both the presently level parts and the parts in serious need of leveling.
mindslight 13y ago
In the Libertarian framework, the government still has a monopoly on force and justice, and so therefore always has the power to make the playing field uneven. Dropping that assertion, we arrive at anarcho-capitalism. And while a very useful framework for understanding the world, if we try using the nominal tenets of ancap as a foundation and hope to welcome their implications, it quickly becomes useless. There is no distinction between the present situation and USG being a corporation that owns all land and that our parents assented to. Stop infighting. This article is dead-on in describing a major modern problem. Only by holding the conflicting thoughts of multiple philosophical decompositions in your head can you ever hope to see a solution.
vacri 13y ago
'make' the playing field uneven? The field was never even.
dkuntz2 13y ago
The core requirement of a for-profit business is that it make money. If it doesn't make money, it can't continue to do what it does, and it can't support it's owners. Because of this, it means that companies are typically very bad at looking at things in the long-term because it's far away and playing for higher profits overall over higher immediate profits doesn't make more money immediately for the owners. ---- The problem isn't that the government's corrupt, it's that the businesses are. If there's no regulating force there's much less of an incentive for companies to be forthright with individuals. I've heard people argue that private consumer protection agencies would help alleviate the problem, but there's nothing requiring the companies to open up to certain agencies, and nothing to keep an industry from creating a jointly owned agency, which is the only one with access to the entire industry. While the consumers would be able to chose the agencies they believe most, there are industries which are inescapable, and if the entire industry ever created their own agency, or refused any agency access, there's nothing you, or really anyone, can do about it.

by jbellis 13y ago

I don't understand how that undermines the Libertarian point that if a government has no power to make the playing field uneven, it doesn't matter if it's corrupt.

MereInterest 13y ago

A government that does not have the power to make an even field uneven will also not have the power to make an uneven field even.

angersock 13y ago
Well put.
alexqgb 13y ago
Also, a government suitably subject to democratic controls has a greater incentive to keep the fields level. That's true of both the presently level parts and the parts in serious need of leveling.

mindslight 13y ago

In the Libertarian framework, the government still has a monopoly on force and justice, and so therefore always has the power to make the playing field uneven. Dropping that assertion, we arrive at anarcho-capitalism. And while a very useful framework for understanding the world, if we try using the nominal tenets of ancap as a foundation and hope to welcome their implications, it quickly becomes useless. There is no distinction between the present situation and USG being a corporation that owns all land and that our parents assented to. Stop infighting. This article is dead-on in describing a major modern problem. Only by holding the conflicting thoughts of multiple philosophical decompositions in your head can you ever hope to see a solution.

vacri 13y ago

'make' the playing field uneven? The field was never even.

dkuntz2 13y ago

The core requirement of a for-profit business is that it make money. If it doesn't make money, it can't continue to do what it does, and it can't support it's owners. Because of this, it means that companies are typically very bad at looking at things in the long-term because it's far away and playing for higher profits overall over higher immediate profits doesn't make more money immediately for the owners. ---- The problem isn't that the government's corrupt, it's that the businesses are. If there's no regulating force there's much less of an incentive for companies to be forthright with individuals. I've heard people argue that private consumer protection agencies would help alleviate the problem, but there's nothing requiring the companies to open up to certain agencies, and nothing to keep an industry from creating a jointly owned agency, which is the only one with access to the entire industry. While the consumers would be able to chose the agencies they believe most, there are industries which are inescapable, and if the entire industry ever created their own agency, or refused any agency access, there's nothing you, or really anyone, can do about it.