You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Topics You Can Never Change My Mind On
A government monopoly doing X, Y, and Z does not prove that government is necessary or efficient. It just proves that politicians used coercion to expropriate wealth, and the dregs went to certain projects.
I don't know where you are from, but if you are from a first world country, it is very easy to discount the value of pooled funding systems via a government after you have benefitted from the achievements of such systems. Certainly it's fair to suggest alternative funding systems, but how can you rationally erase the importance of interstate highways, for example? The rail systems in Japan are a marvel. How can you discount the positive impact of the development of public utilities in the 20th century?
Interstate highways were built before government control. Look up the Lincoln and Dixie highways.
You are appealing to the status quo while completely ignoring the economic fact that monopolies invariably promote waste and abuse. Government is not an exception in any case. The lack of alternatives against which to measure government failure does not mean government is a success by default.
I never said that non-government entities cannot build infrastructure. I think they shouldn't, but they can. And of course, this is the extreme capitalist/libertarian vision - free from the shackles of taxation and regulation, free enterprise will provide what is needed. But for whom?
Free enterprise is not beholden to all citizens as their constituents. The growth of American government over the past 200+ years has been characterized by the ever receding ills of free enterprise and the unfettered profit motive. Slavery, child labor, environmental destruction, sugar, salt, fat, objectification of women - all part of the profit motive.
I am most certainly not appealing to the status quo. American democracy must be much stronger. Citizens must use their collective power to bargain for policy that actually levels the playing field in our democratic system. Average people are far too apathetic, and when the only real active forces lobbying the government are for the wealthy and powerful, it's really no mystery as to why the average citizen is being left in the cold. But it's also not a mystery why. Civic education and civic participation are pitiful in the U.S. Union membership is very low and declining. People don't seem to realize that within a representative democracy, you have power when you organize into large groups and participate.
Who would disagree that waste and abuse are bad? I believe the way you break "government monopolies" and create GOOD government is by creating a equally strong "monopoly" comprised of average citizens, who together have a purchasing power that can match or defeat corporate monopolies - all working within our representative democracy.
I also value efficiency. Waste in government is the enemy of progress, I don't think either party would disagree with that. Civic apathy breeds the politically expedient practices that create waste and abuse.
Wow. You have enough strawman arguments and red herrings to start a fishmongery AND a halloween store!
Why shouldn't free enterprise provide necessary services? Why do you think government can provide them better and more fairly? An honest look at current events and history shows how poorly government performs these services it has monopolized, and a basic understanding of economics shows that this result is to be expected. When costs are hidden from consumers, and there is no competition, there is no room for rational economic calculation by anyone. This guarantees poor service and waste even if you assume that government is entirely altruistic. And the psychological effects of power guarantee that the bureaucrats and politicians will never be altruistic.
Meanwhile, your "free market" boogeyman is an absurd caricature with no basis in reality. The "robber barons" were corporate fat cats who enjoyed the protection of government. It is the productivity of the market's technological advancement and competition for better workers that ended child labor, gave us the 8-hour workday, and made a two-day weekend possible. Union membership is declining becaus eunio0ns suck, operating as political machines more than anything else and acting as obstacles to proper work instead of prtectors of legitimate worker concerns, and workers know this.
Good government is a myth. Corporate monopolies and cartels only function because of government. Politics is a cancer in society.
I apologize if I've misrepresented your points in my responses with a straw man or red herring.
Again, private enterprise has no incentive to do well by the general populace. If a company can establish enough of a monopoly, then it doesn't really matter what people think - profit motive is king. Government on the other hand is fueled by elections, and is beholden to the electorate. Plus - government can cut out the profit motive. So, you have incentive, plus the potential for a more efficient delivery for services. I absolutely agree that we are not there - but I attribute that to the sabotage of government by anti-government legislators, plus a apathetic electorate.
If robber barons "enjoyed the protection of the government," then wasn't didn't protection fall apart after anti-trust law was enacted?
Your argument about child labor falls apart when you consider that we've had child labor all along really, market forces just transferred the child labor overseas. That's the beauty of the profit motive!
The 8-hour work day was absolutely hard fought for by unions. Unions began demanding 8 hour work days in the 1860's, and it wasn't until 1938 that FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which enshrined these standards for all workers - good government.
Here's a reference on that - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/09/viral-image/does-8-hour-day-and-40-hour-come-henry-ford-or-lab/
And my wife and I are both members of different unions that serve us both very well thank you very much. The decline of unions can be directly tracked with the decline of manufacturing employment, much of which was unionized, as well as globalization, and conservative policies of the 1980's. Certainly political advocacy is an important part of union activity, which ensures that union members have a voice in government, which is a good thing for the worker.
Further reading on decline of unions- https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/economist-explains-19
I agree that American conservative legislators enable corporate monopolies by not pursuing anti-trust, as well as cutting all regulation just for the sake of doing so, and not considering the welfare of the average people.
Again, we need good government, not the republican dominated/obstructed government (including 2010-16 of the Obama years, as well as the Clinton years), since 1980, which leads with the principle that government is the enemy. This has become a self fulfilling prophecy, not a means by which we improve the functioning of government.
"Politicians used coercion to expropriate wealth" - as if you feel sympathy for the plight of the excessively wealthy? I do not understand the defense of excessive wealth. The average human makes $1.5 million over their lifetime. It is mind boggling to me how we allow so much accumulation of wealth by such few people. I'm not saying a government has to enforce this necessarily, although I clearly favor a redistributive tax system. I even think a change in philanthropic culture would be better than what we currently have. It seems to me though, that we are seeing a hoarding of wealth today that hearkens back to the era of "Robber Barons." Luxury items, and unsustainably lavish living are fundamentally immoral in the face of the inequality of this world. Again, wealthy individuals could change this themselves, but they don't.
Political plunder is the means by which the "excessively wealthy" prosper. Wealth alone is not an indicator of immorality. Voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial and the economy is not a zero-sum game. However, corporate fat cats benefit from tax-funded subsidies, bailouts, price controls, and other forms of interventionism as a means to plunder the economy.
The population of the wealthy is so small relative to the world's population, that I don't think you can disconnect "political plunder" with the immorality of hoarding wealth, and living lavishly in the face of global inequality.
I would argue that basic voluntary exchange is not at odds with measures preventing the gross accumulation of wealth.
I believe that you defeat "political plunder" through civic education, civic engagement, and the widespread organization of average citizens to properly participate in self-governance, which is our representative democracy.
Representative democracy is a myth. Self-government is antithetical to politics. Even if there were 100% voter participation in an election, how can the favored candidate of 50%+1 represent the 50%-1 in any rational sense? And where is the agent-principal relationship between those who voted for the winner, much less between the winner and those who opposed him or declined to participate in the sham altogether?
You speak as if every election is won 51% - 49% and that we only have one elected official each. We have a vibrant system, that with a properly informed and educated populace can produce a much better future. The sustained effort to dismantle institutions that benefit the working class has eroded the strength of the electorate over the past 30 years. Divisive propaganda has torn us apart in many ways, despite the fact that most American agree on most fundamental values. The embarrassing spectacle of the republican party presidential primaries over the past few elections makes it not so difficult to see where our problems lie. American democracy is only a sham when good people sit out, abdicate their civic duty, and let monied interests control the show.
None of these "refinements" affect my core arguments.