Jump to content

The Political Ideology of Small Government


Ser Vlad

Recommended Posts

Only government has a monopoly on the use of force.

In the U.S. at least, a corporation can't make me do anything.

Corporations can't restrict my freedoms, government can.

I wouldn't characterize a free market as one lacking rules, but rather one where contracts are enforced, and entered into voluntarily (freely) by all parties.

When you impose rules/regulations that prohibit willing parties from engaging in exchange, that market is less free. Such rules may be justified depending on how the exchange affects third parties.

This is usually quite a disingenuous argument, as even in American history we have seen the existence of the company town. In such environments, up until the government stepped in to limit the power of employers, an individual had two choices. They could submit to the authority of the company, or move someplace else.

In a free market system, a corporation can control everything in an area, and force people to choose between obeying their employer and being allowed to do things like eat and sleep with a roof over their head, or move to some place else. There is no reason under such a system a company couldn't enforce codes of conduct as easily as mandatory overtime.

People are offered the same choice in America. They submit to the authority of government or move. The worst case scenario under either system isn't much different. Submit to totalitarianism or flee for pastures that are hopefully far greener.

The only real difference between a government and a market is how people resist such forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theoretically, they can patent your genes and then sue you for infringement. Or invent something that you were already using, and then keep you from using it. Or...I don't know...release Agent Orange into your water supply.

ETA: Or, I have to add, cause a giant fucking oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, ruining your coastline, livelihood, and vacation plans.

I feel sort of restricted by those things.

There's also all the T&C's you have to agree to, onse that restrict what you can do with something, and often all equivilant products have the same basic T&C's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real difference between a government and a market is how people resist such forces.

Wrong. Governments represent the people, companies don't. This is crucial.

Assuming we're talking about democracies, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Companies represent the people, too. What the people want to buy.

Surely the responsiveness of the market to consumers puts the moral justification for democratic government to shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

patent your genes and then sue you for infringement. Or invent something that you were already using, and then keep you from using it. Or...I don't know...release Agent Orange into your water supply.

ETA: Or, I have to add, cause a giant fucking oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, ruining

come now. surely you are attempting to impose externalities on these fine upstanding citizens by insisting that the opinions on the matters aforesaid, of a non-shareholder peasant, such as yourself, be taken into consideration while they march triumphantly on the market's holy mission of progress and development?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Governments represent the people, companies don't. This is crucial.

Wrong. Politicians, like companies, serve their customers. Their donors, and the people who perpetuate their existence. Politicians, like companies, tend to have little regard for everyone else.

Ask a homosexual black woman looking to adopt a child in the south east how the last administration represented her. Ask an older white christian man that wants the Obama to keep his filthy government hands off of His social security/medicare how this one represents him.

Pretty sure both feel ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could anyone from the small-government camp discuss how "small" their ideal government would be?

No larger than is necessary to protect individual rights.

Every act of the state is fundamentally a use of force, and the only acceptable use of force is for the protection of individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could anyone from the small-government camp discuss how "small" their ideal government would be?

The county or city level. A military alliance for adventures of mutual interest might be beneficial.

Frankly, I don't care if Michael Bloomberg sets himself up as mayor-for-life with a government more totalitarian than sologdin's fondest dreams, so long as his touch doesn't even reach Philadelphia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? And, far more importantly, how not?

Um, because a companies job is to provide you with a specific good or service and that's it? They don't give a shit about anything else to do with you or externalities to their goals.

A governments job is to represent you and look out for you. Even if you didn't vote for them. It's not like when Obama was elected suddenly Republican voters were denied social services or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to provide you with a specific good or service
to represent you and look out for you.

What's the difference?

Even if you didn't vote for them.

And you're billing this as a feature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

serve their customers

not the same as representation of the citizenry.

It's actually worse than that. Modern corporations are not passive servants of their customers. On the cintrary they are quite apt at managing demand. For example GM in the olden times made a habit of buying and tearing up urban rail. But even without resorting to such crude methods there still are advertisements. While each individual can opt out they do create demand in the aggregate.

No larger than is necessary to protect individual rights.

Every act of the state is fundamentally a use of force, and the only acceptable use of force is for the protection of individual rights.

Do these individual rights include protection of property? Because in a capitalist society that is the same as enforcing a hierarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Politicians, like companies, serve their customers. Their donors, and the people who perpetuate their existence. Politicians, like companies, tend to have little regard for everyone else.

Up to a point. Politicians can be partisan, but governments still have to provide public services and uphold the rights of all their citizens (even if they're far from perfect at achieving this). They maintain infrastructures, such as roads and bridges, which can be used by all. They maintain a police force. They protect the interests of the nation abroad through war and diplomacy. When a hurricane strikes Louisiana, or oil spills in the Gulf, governments have to act.

Companies just have to look after their customers. As long as people keep buying their products, everyone else can get screwed.

Ask a homosexual black woman looking to adopt a child in the south east how the last administration represented her. Ask an older white christian man that wants the Obama to keep his filthy government hands off of His social security/medicare how this one represents him.

Pretty sure both feel ignored.

The fact that government represents all citizens does not mean all citizens get exactly what they want. You know as well as I that that is impossible. Although governments should do their best to look after all their citizens, not just their own interest groups - one of the (many) things I hold against the Bush administration.

So, no doubt governments can be partisan and corrupt. But they're founded on the principles of election and representation. All the people you mentioned can vote, and thereby change things. Your own example makes this clear. The US has gone from a rightwing "small" government to a "leftwing" government (for American standards at least) which is far more "socialist". People can *influence* who is in power, and opt for change if they don't like what they get.

When was the last time you got to vote for the CEO and board of a big company?

If you really don't see any difference between the two, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do. Nor can I take such a position very seriously. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Companies just have to look after their customers.

They don't even have to do that. Only people they have to look after are their shareholders. If there is profit in it, and if there's no regulations to stop them, they'll happily screw over their customers, too.

Libertarians will respond with "Free market will fix it." No it won't. If one major corporation adopts a profitable way of screwing over its customers, most of the time it is more profitable for their competitors to do the same than to remain ethical. Example: food and pharmaceutical industries before the formation of FDA and its equivalents in other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference?

the analogy is inadequate. the relationship of citizens to state is not the same as the relation of customers to corporation. more likely, the relation that is relevant is shareholders to corporation.

the state must protect the rights of all its citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. the corporation need not bother with any customer who is unable or unwilling to pay for the extremely limited services offered by the corporation, which are also often trivial (rather than fundamental, such as those offered by states). perhaps in libertarianland, where votes are weighted according to amount of taxes paid and all state services are pay-per-use, the customer = citizen. everywhere else, not so much.

that's all on paper, of course, which is not the same as reality--but since when did the average corporation actually do anything for its clientele, outside of economics 101 textbooks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up to a point. Politicians can be partisan, but governments still have to provide public services and uphold the rights of all their citizens

No they don't. This is an ideal. A hope. A pure construct people set up for philosophical discussions that doesn't exist anywhere in reality. Free Marketeers often do the same thing, it is bullshit for both parties, not just one.

The government doesn't have to protect people's rights. It will in fact violate people's rights when a politician's customers, I.E their donors and everyone else that perpetuates a politician's existence, feels it is either good or necessary. We don't even have to get into gray areas like income taxes or gay marriage to prove this. We can use basic human rights such as habeas corpus.

So ideally governments protect the rights of everyone. That is true. Sort of the way that ideally no company in a free market will actively attempt to avoid straight competition. Reality however doesn't resemble the ideal.

The fact that government represents all citizens does not mean all citizens get exactly what they want.

I didn't claim otherwise. I pointed out that depending on which party is in power large segments of the population receive little to no representation. In point of fact, the groups listed above all argue that the administration in power was actively seeking to violate their rights, rather then defend them.

If you really don't see any difference between the two, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do. Nor can I take such a position very seriously. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

I did not say there was no difference between the two. Please do not lecture on intellectual dishonesty while actively strawmanning. I said the difference between the two is how one goes about resisting the establishment of totalitarianism in either system.

In one, people construct political coalitions and fund raise ect. In the other people construct unions and boycott ect.

And on the off chance you are going to argue that one can alter policy with a vote, but not with a boycott, please remember that Obama was against things like suspending habeas corpus when convenient, extraordinary rendition, the existence of Guantanamo bay, and for things like like the public option, eliminating back room deal making and horse trading in our legislature, abolishing don't ask don't tell in his first year, and a boat load of other examples he has either reversed himself on or failed to realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't even have to do that. Only people they have to look after are their shareholders. If there is profit in it, and if there's no regulations to stop them, they'll happily screw over their customers, too.

Libertarians will respond with "Free market will fix it." No it won't. If one major corporation adopts a profitable way of screwing over its customers, most of the time it is more profitable for their competitors to do the same than to remain ethical. Example: food and pharmaceutical industries before the formation of FDA and its equivalents in other countries.

This. There is no obligation to the customer. In fact if you can convince someone to become a customer even if it runs contrary to their interests, then you are obligated to do so. This is what marketing departments do.

The same goes for treatment of your workers; which is the other way companies exert power over the general populace. Whatever you can do to lower the cost of labor is fair game. And I would argue that this goes much deeper into an individual's life than any government in the US ever could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...