11 ms·

Smaller governments (i.e. less power, shallower hierarchies), good voting systems, and an informed public are the answer; not avoiding government altogether. L

by majika 12y ago

Smaller governments (i.e. less power, shallower hierarchies), good voting systems, and an informed public are the answer; not avoiding government altogether. Libertarianism (i.e. absolute belief in the capitalist market and private property) doesn't work, because the markets don't reflect negative externalities like pollution, over-harvesting, misinformation, or antibiotics misuse. States need to exist to manipulate markets to reflect those things. There are many industries where the profit motive is contrary to the public interest, like education, health, media, banking, prisons, military, drugs, junk food, gambling, etc. Either [a] the state should be the sole player in the industry (prisons, military), [b] the state should provide a public service in that industry to set a baseline for private competitors (education, health, media), [c] the state should impose regulations/taxation that prevent/discourage activity contrary to the public interest (banking, junk food, drugs), or [d] the state should outlaw the industry entirely (gambling (IMHO)). There are many "markets" that are inherently monopolistic, or where private competition is nonsensical, like public spaces (parks, lakes, rivers) and public infrastructure (roads, telecoms, trains, airports). Companies and markets are only good at medium-term thinking (at best). Google employees avoid thinking about the kind of society they're creating for their grandchildren, but that's the job description of elected representatives (in accountable governments). Finally, but most significantly, there's that whole thing about capital accumulating to the top. Income and capital gains taxation is in the public interest, because equality and a well-financed state is in the public interest. I feel like many Americans tend towards libertarianism because they feel that their governments are unaccountable, unrepresentative and corrupt. I think the problem in the US is the size and power of its government - not the concept of government itself. I think the federation of the US should be abolished (as in, all federal law). States could sign up to federal institutions/programs (central bank, defense, immigration, ...) when and how they please. Personally, I think any moderately-populated area should have a single level of government spanning no further than 2-4 km from its parliament (i.e. within walking distance). Each of these states can assume common administration of adjacent sparsely-populated areas. If the states agree to a common legislative process, there's no duplication of effort in passing common legislation, except for each parliament voting on it or amending it as they want, which is democratic! Libertarianism really grates me, but I enjoy debating it because I see that libertarians want the same things I do: liberty and equality for everyone.

waps 12y ago
> negative externalities like pollution, over-harvesting, misinformation, or antibiotics misuse. Not disagreeing, because the point is true. However solutions for most of these have been found a) over-harvesting : only a problem in a non-fully-privatized situation (in other words, the more government involvement, the more you have this problem). This one is actually an argument FOR capitalism. b) pollution is also a tragedy of the commons thing, and could be solved by privatisation. Of course, in the real world that presents some challenges. c) misinformation : this is not a problem of capitalism at all. Or rather, it's a problem that solves itself under capitalism (though not necessarily to people's liking). For example, insurance can fix this. Under central planning systems, every one I've ever seen, the problem is not so much misinformation, but the total lack of relevant information at all (e.g. employing the mayor's daughter in your management structure gets you the contract for city IT, good luck finding that info. Oh and if you're an idealist : good luck preventing that from happening). d) antibiotics misuse : well, on one hand this is happening partly due to misuse. However, where do you have any data whatsoever that it wouldn't happen without misuse ? As far as I can tell antibiotics resistance happened even before WWII, when we were definitely not wasting antibiotics. At any rate, the ship has sailed and it's a sunk cost at this point. We should not waste money and resources fighting it, as even massive effort can only slightly reduce the rate here, it can't fix it. (one theory I found is that what's happening is simply that we are effectively raising the price of new and therefore working antibiotics, dampening their use, until a balance with nature is found. Sadly, it is blatantly obvious that in order for this to actually happen, the vast majority of the sick would need to go untreated, so there simply isn't a good solution, capitalist or government)
- majika 12y ago
  Can you please explain how markets address overharvesting and pollution, and examples of that happening? If your point is that states can overharvest and pollute too, sure - of course they can. They probably will if they're corrupt. My point was that only states can stop it: see the legislation on whaling, fishing, poaching, emissions regulations and taxation, ... On misinformation, you made the (unrelated) point that states are corruptible. Yes, they are; so are markets (e.g. LIBOR) and companies (i.e. employees acting contrary to the company's interest). Corruption occurs when the people involved are undesirable, and the reward outweighs the risk of being caught. In states where the electorate cares and is informed, undesirables are less likely to be elected, and there's a higher risk of being caught. Ideally, the bureaucrats involved in choosing who to give the contract to (the bureaucrats being directly affected by the decision, because the government is smaller) would tip off the local broadcaster that the decision was rigged, and they would investigate. I think it's more likely for corruption to be unveiled in states than there is in markets or companies. The larger the company, the smaller the chance - and free markets tend towards multinational monopolies anyway ("efficiency" and all that). My mention of misinformation was referring to things like: the media reporting on celebrities rather than legislation, or misleading advertising, or the media being paid to report a certain way or avoid a certain story. These actions have negative externalities, and the markets won't stop them. What the market wants (more celebrity stories, or fewer oil spill stories) isn't always what the market should get. It should be illegal to use antibiotics in agriculture, yet the markets love them. That was my point.

by majika 12y ago

waps 12y ago

> negative externalities like pollution, over-harvesting, misinformation, or antibiotics misuse. Not disagreeing, because the point is true. However solutions for most of these have been found a) over-harvesting : only a problem in a non-fully-privatized situation (in other words, the more government involvement, the more you have this problem). This one is actually an argument FOR capitalism. b) pollution is also a tragedy of the commons thing, and could be solved by privatisation. Of course, in the real world that presents some challenges. c) misinformation : this is not a problem of capitalism at all. Or rather, it's a problem that solves itself under capitalism (though not necessarily to people's liking). For example, insurance can fix this. Under central planning systems, every one I've ever seen, the problem is not so much misinformation, but the total lack of relevant information at all (e.g. employing the mayor's daughter in your management structure gets you the contract for city IT, good luck finding that info. Oh and if you're an idealist : good luck preventing that from happening). d) antibiotics misuse : well, on one hand this is happening partly due to misuse. However, where do you have any data whatsoever that it wouldn't happen without misuse ? As far as I can tell antibiotics resistance happened even before WWII, when we were definitely not wasting antibiotics. At any rate, the ship has sailed and it's a sunk cost at this point. We should not waste money and resources fighting it, as even massive effort can only slightly reduce the rate here, it can't fix it. (one theory I found is that what's happening is simply that we are effectively raising the price of new and therefore working antibiotics, dampening their use, until a balance with nature is found. Sadly, it is blatantly obvious that in order for this to actually happen, the vast majority of the sick would need to go untreated, so there simply isn't a good solution, capitalist or government)

majika 12y ago
Can you please explain how markets address overharvesting and pollution, and examples of that happening? If your point is that states can overharvest and pollute too, sure - of course they can. They probably will if they're corrupt. My point was that only states can stop it: see the legislation on whaling, fishing, poaching, emissions regulations and taxation, ... On misinformation, you made the (unrelated) point that states are corruptible. Yes, they are; so are markets (e.g. LIBOR) and companies (i.e. employees acting contrary to the company's interest). Corruption occurs when the people involved are undesirable, and the reward outweighs the risk of being caught. In states where the electorate cares and is informed, undesirables are less likely to be elected, and there's a higher risk of being caught. Ideally, the bureaucrats involved in choosing who to give the contract to (the bureaucrats being directly affected by the decision, because the government is smaller) would tip off the local broadcaster that the decision was rigged, and they would investigate. I think it's more likely for corruption to be unveiled in states than there is in markets or companies. The larger the company, the smaller the chance - and free markets tend towards multinational monopolies anyway ("efficiency" and all that). My mention of misinformation was referring to things like: the media reporting on celebrities rather than legislation, or misleading advertising, or the media being paid to report a certain way or avoid a certain story. These actions have negative externalities, and the markets won't stop them. What the market wants (more celebrity stories, or fewer oil spill stories) isn't always what the market should get. It should be illegal to use antibiotics in agriculture, yet the markets love them. That was my point.