Watch Chomsky's Requiem for an American Dream if you want a great analysis of the cyclical nature of corporate power being further and further entrenched as they gain more power to write the laws that benefit them.
1) Openly documented
2) Viewable by all
3) Accountable to the people not the highest bidder
Exactly as the Founding Fathers wrote and spoke of it? They were pre-capitalist, saw the origins of capitalist philosophy beginning, and wrote of their fears about where that will lead a country of free people; straight into the back pockets of the elite (remember the crown was essentially the same way, owned/controlled all, required the masses to entertain them and provide value for THEM).
You seem convinced contributing to your government is a scam, and you should go shovel whatever for some rich wanker.
You got something else to add? Or are you going to just regurgitate the banal fear mongering of the last 200 years?
Producing information is costly. There is a market for it but no general magic solution (this applies to both govt and companies, but I guess it's easier to look into a bunch of small companies rather than one huge govt).
Corporations are accountable of the wrong they do to third parties. It's the whole point of having a judicial system.
If the founding fathers were concerned about government capture by the elite, why did they limit the right to vote to land owners? They basically decided that only the wealthy could vote.
At the time (e.g. 18th century), it was the best proxy for education. In the age of the internet, we have at least the prospect of learning at our own pace regardless of financial means. This requires an interest in knowledge while minimizing biases.
Sure, but restricting voting to the educated is still restricting voting to the elite. It still doesn't seem compatible with limiting the influence of the elites on the government, which 32hkwejr claimed was their goal.
>restricting voting to the educated is still restricting voting to the elite.
At that time...
Buuuut we now live in the age of the internet, and knowledge is a pure commodity. There are authoritarians looking to muddy the waters and make knowledge more difficult to acquire, but for those interested in learning (like the kids I've worked with), there are plenty of free options I couldn't dream of at the public library I went to as a kid.
We still have an issue of poor education, don't get me wrong, though it is not a result of elitism (quite the contrary).
(I haven't watched the doc or followed Chomsky much)
I think a lot of the contention is putting faith in the "the market" (but I would hope even staunchest libertarians realize at times that can be disproportionately large companies) or governments. I feel like the extremes on both sides put too much faith in one or the other. To keep each other in check one can't be too much larger, or wield too much power over the other.
When companies become multinational, things can get weird because they can evade single governments. I'm not saying it's always bad, but it is hard to keep them in check.
"Free market" is just an illusionary goal--there's no such thing in practice. Every aspect of reality creates some bias to one party or another. Governments try to encourage competitive entreprises, innovative ideas and good mechanisms of check and balances by eliminating monopolies, reducing dynasties/incumbencies and other barriers of entry, in addition to other things like maintaining a fair legal system.
The only example there that could be remotely tied to the government is cable companies (I think the last-mile expense barrier to entry is the main contributor to those monopolies). All of them prevent a "free market" and the idea is that governments break those things up or regulate them. Breaking up a monopoly reduces barrier to entry. After the breakup of at&t, long distance rates dropped due to the new competition.
A few things most governments do to reduce the barrier of entry when starting or running a business: maintain a legal system to facilitate agreements between parties, educate a workforce so there's a pool of citizens with basic skills you can hire or sell things to, maintain open access roadways for transport of workforce and goods, maintain a trusted currency for the exchange of goods and services. All of those would be huge hurdles if I wanted to open a lemonade stand.
> unless you're talking about mafias.
So they're the only fly in the ointment if governments didn't exist? What is the solution to mafias if the government just steals resources?
I'm earnestly curious, if governments only oppress a market, where your best or ideal example? Is there any free market that doesn't have a government? How come when governments fail (or countries without strong governments) a strong free market doesn't develop to overtake the EU or US?
All of them prevent a "free market" and the idea is that governments break those things up or regulate them
What did govt do exactly to prevent, I quote the WP article, " food markets in cinemas, airports, and sports arenas, college textbooks, the Kosher food market in the United Kingdom, and phone calls and food in jails and prisons" ?
maintain a legal system to facilitate agreements between parties
Yes !
maintain a trusted currency for the exchange of goods and services
Yes but they also forbid some forms of private currencies and make mandatory to keep using their currency. If their currency was so great, why would it need force to make it mandatory ?
if governments only oppress a market
I didn't say that. Maybe govt are the best solution we have right now for homeland security, police and basic justice. For the rest of its activites, I'm pretty sure it's useless
Who said government is the solution to every single problem? I implied too much government intervention was also bad in my original post. I do think the phone call situation in US prisons are exploitative and I hope it does get addressed. Jail/prisons being the responsibility of the government, economic arguments don't apply and they shouldn't exploit prisoners (I'm also not a fan of the "slavery" exemption for prisoners). Just because a captive market exists, doesn't mean it's bad and it has to exploit them...capitalism just tends to push it in that direction. Teddy Roosevelt, who started the "trust busting" didn't have a problem with monopolies, only the monopolies that exploited their position. That still applies to today's anti-trust laws.
> If their currency was so great, why would it need force to make it mandatory ?
Because too many people cause shenanigans when they don't? I'm kind of surprised you were cool with a single legal system, but not with currencies.
> I didn't say that.
You said, "every government action steals resources from someone and prevents them to do it on their own." Maybe I should have been explicit and said "free market" but I figured it was implied. How is "every action steals resources" not oppressing the free market you describe?
