Posted by: daskapitalist
Posting time: 3.7 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 6/12/2017 10:00:00 AM
Views: 813
SCP: 39
45 upvotes, 6 downvotes (88% upvoted it)
~1 user(s) here now
NSFW: No
Authorized: No
Anon: No
Private: No
Type: Default
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
Again, a government failing as the problem comes directly from the government grant of patent monopoly.
[–] 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.