4 ms·

I think the idea is that in a capitalist competition we should assume all actors are trying to monopolize the industry and really only follow laws to avoid harm

by runaway 12y ago

I think the idea is that in a capitalist competition we should assume all actors are trying to monopolize the industry and really only follow laws to avoid harming their bottom line. The same way you'd design any system by assuming any user might be malicious. The way to manage this is to eliminate corruption and strictly scrutinize the relationships between businesses and gov't entities.

mempko 12y ago
oh to live in a world with which those relationships can't exist because the entities can't exist. But that might be too radical.
- penprog 12y ago
  Sooo... you want a world without business or government entities? What?
  - coldtea 12y ago
    What "what"? This has been a standard aim for anarchists etc for ages...
  - mpyne 12y ago
    I think the thought seems to be that if we don't allow people to organize in any meaningful way (i.e. against the people) then the problem of organizations is solved. Never mind that said organizations would simply resort to setting up unofficial enforcement mechanisms, much like organized crime already does today. Other counter-examples aren't that hard to find either.
jessaustin 12y ago
The way to manage this is to eliminate corruption... This has proven difficult in many situations. Is there any reason to believe that it can be done in e.g. USA?
- nostrademons 12y ago
  It can't, but it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing. A system that is less corrupt functions more smoothly than one that is more corrupt, even if there is still corruption. In the U.S, corruption takes the form of old-boy networks for financial access, exclusive business relationships, under-the-table deals that you'd rather not be made public, close relationships between business and politicians, alumni networks, etc. In many other countries, corruption takes the form of bribes needed to even start a business, hired goons that you have to pay off for protection, unreserved Party loyalty, and midnight executions of people who are deemed a threat. As a startup founder, I get annoyed at all the hoops I have to jump through that have little to do with building a good product, but realistically, I am risking comparatively little and there are ways to convince people that don't involve obsequiousness. Doing something disruptive in, say, sub-Saharan Africa or China or the Philippines often involves much more significant risks to life or property.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  It, of course, can't be done practically speaking. That's one of the the basic failings of all the true free market capitalists (at least the ones who really believe in it and aren't just using the idea to manipulate others the way religions do with their 'flocks'). They have this naive understanding of human nature that believes such a system could exist without corruption when history shows again and again and again (and again...) that even if you start from a system relatively free of corruption, if there are not pre-existing checks and balances (eg. meaningful government regulations) that are constantly maintained the entities who "win" at the system invariably become corrupt in order to maintain the status quo that has worked out so well for them and they begin to tilt the system in their favor. Since they won (and thus have the most resources) they are in the perfect position to influence the system to bend to them, which they invariably eventually do if given the chance.
Strang 12y ago
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. There is a lot of gray area between lobbying and corruption. And lobbying has a bad connotation, but people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives and advocate for legislative outcomes.
- pyre 12y ago
  > people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives A lack of lobbying wouldn't prevent anyone from speaking to their representatives. The negative connotations around lobbying come from things like: - Large campaign contributors getting more attention than constituents (even if their industry isn't in the state; See Orrin Hatch and Hollywood for an example). - Lobbyists being people that know the politicians, and therefore are being paid to use that trust. ... etc
lazylizard 12y ago
we're not clever enough to price all externalities.

by runaway 12y ago

mempko 12y ago

oh to live in a world with which those relationships can't exist because the entities can't exist. But that might be too radical.

penprog 12y ago
Sooo... you want a world without business or government entities? What?
- coldtea 12y ago
  What "what"? This has been a standard aim for anarchists etc for ages...
- mpyne 12y ago
  I think the thought seems to be that if we don't allow people to organize in any meaningful way (i.e. against the people) then the problem of organizations is solved. Never mind that said organizations would simply resort to setting up unofficial enforcement mechanisms, much like organized crime already does today. Other counter-examples aren't that hard to find either.

jessaustin 12y ago

The way to manage this is to eliminate corruption... This has proven difficult in many situations. Is there any reason to believe that it can be done in e.g. USA?

nostrademons 12y ago
It can't, but it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing. A system that is less corrupt functions more smoothly than one that is more corrupt, even if there is still corruption. In the U.S, corruption takes the form of old-boy networks for financial access, exclusive business relationships, under-the-table deals that you'd rather not be made public, close relationships between business and politicians, alumni networks, etc. In many other countries, corruption takes the form of bribes needed to even start a business, hired goons that you have to pay off for protection, unreserved Party loyalty, and midnight executions of people who are deemed a threat. As a startup founder, I get annoyed at all the hoops I have to jump through that have little to do with building a good product, but realistically, I am risking comparatively little and there are ways to convince people that don't involve obsequiousness. Doing something disruptive in, say, sub-Saharan Africa or China or the Philippines often involves much more significant risks to life or property.
georgemcbay 12y ago
It, of course, can't be done practically speaking. That's one of the the basic failings of all the true free market capitalists (at least the ones who really believe in it and aren't just using the idea to manipulate others the way religions do with their 'flocks'). They have this naive understanding of human nature that believes such a system could exist without corruption when history shows again and again and again (and again...) that even if you start from a system relatively free of corruption, if there are not pre-existing checks and balances (eg. meaningful government regulations) that are constantly maintained the entities who "win" at the system invariably become corrupt in order to maintain the status quo that has worked out so well for them and they begin to tilt the system in their favor. Since they won (and thus have the most resources) they are in the perfect position to influence the system to bend to them, which they invariably eventually do if given the chance.

Strang 12y ago

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. There is a lot of gray area between lobbying and corruption. And lobbying has a bad connotation, but people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives and advocate for legislative outcomes.

pyre 12y ago
> people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives A lack of lobbying wouldn't prevent anyone from speaking to their representatives. The negative connotations around lobbying come from things like: - Large campaign contributors getting more attention than constituents (even if their industry isn't in the state; See Orrin Hatch and Hollywood for an example). - Lobbyists being people that know the politicians, and therefore are being paid to use that trust. ... etc

lazylizard 12y ago

we're not clever enough to price all externalities.