[–] WedgeSerif 4 points 0 points 4 points (+4|-4) ago
It sounds as if you're asking why one would expect the government NOT to exploit laissez-faire capitalism. That doesn't make sense to me. I thought "laissez-faire capitalism" was a market free of government intervention; a government that exploited said system wouldn't be "hands-off," as the label implies.
If you're asking why one would expect government regulations to be less exploitative than the EMTC's you mention, the answer is accountability. A corporation doesn't necessarily need to keep its customers happy in order to stay in business; L-FC leads to monopolization, and once a corporation is the only one that sells you what you need to live (like insulin), they can do whatever they want. A government must keep its voters happy, or else something like Trump or Brexit happens.
[–] rwbj 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
I'd also add that different forms of government can make public response against corruption even more effective. For instance most of the developed world now uses various forms of proportional representation. In our system if a state sends 10 representatives to congress and each district votes exactly 40% democrat, 30% republican, 20% libertarian, 20% green that you get 10 democrat representatives. Wouldn't getting 4 democrats, 3 republicans, 2 libertarians, and 2 greens make infinitely more sense? Proportional systems also make jerrymandering, where politicians unfairly draw those districts out for political gain, impossible.
Anyhow, the point there is that small groups of people can actually get political representation in congress and start working to enact change. In the current system you win a plurality over every other party, or go home with 0 representation and that is why even though fewer people than ever identify as republican or democrat just about 100% of seats at all levels of our government are occupied by republicans or democrats.
[–] 8399393? 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
Yet government consistently proves that it has no desire to do right by the voters, just to figure out how to buy the votes of the most voters to stay in power. Those two are nowhere near the same thing.
once a corporation is the only one that sells you what you need to live (like insulin)
Again, a government failing as the problem comes directly from the government grant of patent monopoly.
[–] Anson 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
@Alopix explain. You hated government before obama, then you were for bigger govt (dont lie faggot, bigger govt was exactly your plan with suporting bernie niggers) and planned to use the police as your military to cripple the strong, you weak, pathetic socialist.
Explain yourself
[–] Eualos 2 points 1 point 3 points (+3|-2) ago (edited ago)
Laissez-faire need only be stopped to prevent monopoly, which doesn't deal with human fallability or moral weakness, but rather domination by the very strong by developing a stranglehold on the market and supplanting a free market where all can competitively exchange their goods. Developing a monopoly isn't immoral or fallability, it's the result of running a company very well to its ultimate conclusion in terms of profit and competitiveness.
[–] Docta_pizza 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
Agreed. I consider myself to be pretty strongly libertarian, but it seems clear that some government intervention/oversight is definitely required in order to prevent companies overrunning (and thus stagnating) entire markets. I would argue we need even more of that than we already have. Just look at the way the major ISPs like Comcast are able to muscle their way into favorable legislature, and keep prices high and speeds low for everybody since no other companies can really compete. I'm also beginning to wonder, at what point should the government step in and maintain some kind of free speech on mass-communication (though still private) websites like facebook or twitter. If the vast majority of people get any and all information from these very censor-heavy sites, that starts to become pretty worrisome I think.
[–] 0fsgivin 2 points 2 points 4 points (+4|-2) ago (edited ago)
You don't want extremes period. Laissez fair can never even really exist. Powerful businesses then just take everythign over even the government. Which they have pretty much already done. Which is why a BILLIONAIRE was kinda our only fucking hope. He didnt need their money to run.
You need a balance between the powerful merchants, the military, and the nobility(substituted in this case by elected officials). That's what we try to do in this country. Checks and balances.
Otherwise you're powerful merchants become ACTUAL nobility.
100% communism don't work...Socialism don't work...capitalism don't work. So we try and blend the fuckers and that actually seems to work. Problem is the merchants managed to flood us with immigrants WAY PAST our need for them.
That and the boomers spent all their AND our fucking money.
Of course ultimately "who watches the watchmen" always becomes a problem in ANY system.
[–] 0fsgivin 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
LOL..And while Jews certainly do represent a larger statistical protion of the wealthy. If you think Wealthy Catholics, Baptists, Athiests, Muslims, etc. are not also exerting negative influence over the poor you're kidding yourself.
The Jews are not half as powerful as most people love to believe. Don't get me wrong they would love to be. As would any of those other groups I just mentioned or many more.
Wealthy people don't have religion really, or a code or a god. Well they do but the religion/code/god is POWER.
However, I was just assuming by your statment you meant "ZE JEWS!" And yah Soros should be hanged. But there are probably plenty of red pilled jews much as there are plenty of Globalist Catholics.
[–] individualin1984 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Considering that as we have all seen repeatedly that government can do much more evil and get away with it much more easily, this isn't even a fair comparison.
[–] bikergang_accountant 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
At least in laissez faire you get your choice to not use someone's services and use another. Unless there is a monopoly. I'm for monopoly busting but we never seem to do that. It's almost like the people responsible for doing that are controlled by the monopolies. If they can't get that right maybe we shouldn't trust them with anything else, if it's a known fact that they're compromised.
[–] Amadameus 3 points -1 points 2 points (+2|-3) ago
A government has a mandate to serve the people - if it's not doing that, it's a broken government and should be fixed.
A company has a mandate to make money - if it's fucking people over by doing that, it's a good business and should continue.