The bigger government gets, the less freedoms the people have. It is critically important not to ask government to solve problems (government is bad at solving most problems), and to seek ways to shrink government.
replies(6):
I reject the implication, that corporations are always better at solving most problems.
> and to seek ways to shrink government.
Id rather seek ways to maximize liberty, and while they frequently can mean limiting the government, the act of shrinking the government is not _necessary_, and even works against my goals if the government is the one keeping my liberty maximized
I’m glad Canada is talking about centralizing how trade is managed, for example. I think it’ll be good for us in the long run. Yet I don’t think food security is best accomplished through centralized farming practices. Distribution of these systems may be slightly less efficient, but I think that’s a price worth paying in the longer term. Especially as we need to worry more about climate change which can have localized impacts.
It’s a complex matter. We shouldn’t hesitate to centralize when it makes sense. But we should be careful, too. Centralization comes with drawbacks, no matter what. They won’t always be easy to anticipate.
There is no logical or humane reason to keep working as much as we do. You want to be competitive join a sports league or something. If you want to question why would anyone do what I suggested you can just go to github.com and see millions of altruists doing it for free. A clear example of humanity trying to break free held down by a vast swathe of wretches of would-be millionaires and current billionaires.
It is impossible for me to entertain anything related to conserving any part of the status quo while I still have to work 40+ hours a week. It is a complete shit show and we've made no progress in the past 250 years except a couple apps and other bullshit "technology" with meaningful tech being an absolute drop in an infinite ocean of shit. How embarrassing for all of us.
Life seems like work to me. I think I live in a country that’s fortunate enough to get to believe otherwise, but when we factor in all of the externalities of our goods and services, there’s a tremendous amount of work and environmental debt (future labour) occurring. If I’m not working 40+ hours per week for the insane quality of life I have, someone is now or eventually.
> I reject the implication, that corporations are always better at solving most problems.
Risk is a stupid thing. There are plenty of insanely smart people who will not rock the boat because they do not want to undertake risk and so we lose out on their productivity. We've created a thunderdome where only the most callous and pathological survive and win, anyone else gets crushed.
>If I’m not working 40+ hours per week for the insane quality of life I have, someone is now or eventually.
We are living inside of the externality of a small group of peoples pathologies.
Nowhere did he say corporations would be doing everything. There were a whole plethora of organizations and institutions (social clubs, religious adjacent institutions, etc) that used do do a lot of the public good type stuff and have fallen by the wayside or become indistinguishable from government contractors over the past 100yr as high touch western governments have usurped and stuck their noses in their functions.
No. But will meet regulatory minimums insofar as active ingredients, purity, etc.
They don’t have a monopoly like the OP described, however. If they did? Yikes…
Notably, that kind of economy is roughly how the USSR ran, and no one praised it when it died.
Their healthcare provided by corporations is vastly more expensive and has much worse outcomes than healthcare provided to billions of people by governments.
Same for higher education.
If you want to claim he’s going down a different path you or they could make that argument, and I am going to tell you that if you want to make a claim using the beginning of a well worn argument and not include information on why your position is materially different, then you don’t get to be upset when people make assumptions
I know this because they paid me the legal minimum and only provided workplace safety as much as they felt compelled to by the government.
The corporate boot tastes no better than the federal one
I'll give a concrete example: I don't think the government needs to be in the business of organizing youth football. Many sports get by just fine with sports teams organized, funded and run by volunteers. Youth baseball is usually this way; organized by dads and perhaps partially funded by local pizza shops (too corporate? Essentially harmless.) Football though is organized through school districts, funded by property owners paying their taxes. This isn't necessary.
This is why it has always scared me when people have said "run the government like a business." I don't want to live in a monarchy/dictatorship/oligarcy/plutocracy/etc. I don't want government decisions to be based on "shareholders" views. That just sounds like Plutocracy. I want a government to be representative, to care not just for the rich and powerful, but the weakest. If we judge a man by how he treats those he has nothing to gain from then we judge a government by how it treats its poorest and worst off citizens. I don't care about a ceiling inasmuch as I care about a floor.
[0] I also don't quite understand why people are so hostile to employee owned organizations or even organizations where there is still a clear hierarchy but shares are distributed more liberally or any such systems are employed that allow for employees to more directly participate. There's a wide range of solutions between total dictatorship and complete socialist style equality.
(s)he did not imply corporations.