Agreed about stopping that spending. You like the hospitals? And the roads? One of them is full of potholes and patrolled by the State constantly for their ticketing revenue generation scheme and the other will bankrupt you for existing. Doesn’t much matter if it’s America or elsewhere, the only difference is whether they took your money already or not.
That’s kinda my point though, if we had less tax money spent on companies and bombs then they could fix more potholes and wouldn’t have the same excuse of needing money to ticket people. A non corrupt govt could spend that money with so much more efficiency than we could. I think war money in the USA is so high that they could probably give you tax cuts at the same time if they just chilled on bombs.
There’s no such thing as a non-corrupt government. Taxation perverts the incentives because the source of their revenue is decoupled from the voluntary contributions of people who want the service they provide. That extra money will not be going to you. These people are not your friend. Efficiency isn’t even possible - half of the information in the economic calculation is not present because they don’t obtain revenue voluntarily.
Taxation perverts the incentives because the source of their revenue is decoupled from the voluntary contributions of people who want the service they provide. That extra money will not be going to you. These people are not your friend. Efficiency isn’t even possible - half of the information in the economic calculation is not present because they don’t obtain revenue voluntarily.
The less corrupt, the more specialists will control their own fields of specialty which allows more efficiency and sanity to the system, going beyond the standard incentives and the likes. I do agree that large scale governments are inherently bad, but I don’t think people are ready for anything better than a lower corruption more democratic subdivided government. Sounds like you want business to be more powerful than government? The reason our governments are so corrupt is because businesses buy the politicians because of previous measures being degraded by the same influences before. As corruption in the govt increases, corporate control is maximised.
I wasn’t expecting a serious convo in this post haha
I agree the more decentralized the better. And the government is just a business with the worst incentives - evidenced by other, more efficient businesses following their own incentives to protect their interests by lobbying the government to use the impetus of legal violence. The existence of the government provides the avenue for corruption. There isn’t a great workaround, the Constitution was the best attempt and a single clause enabled the federal government to argue for basically everything it does.
Best just to nix the idea of an institution that can legally demand resources regardless of how well they perform their job.
And yeah, sorry about the seriousness- I’m no fan of billionaires but they can theoretically exist just by providing things people want. The government, with taxes and wars, figuratively and literally suck the blood out of people.
When we started talking, I didn’t notice your username. If I did, I would have taken a different non reformist approach, so this is a bit messy because of me.
I think power corrupts, and I mean almost any level of power will make a person go insane(in a sane looking way).
Capitalist institutions will prefer to keep govt style arrangements with no power to the pretend democracy so they can protect themselves from themselves in a basic contract style way. What we see lately is the libertarian/ancap/conservative group gaining power. As they gain power, the govt becomes the capitalists puppet and rejects democracy entirely.
The correct way to handle this in my eyes is for a cultural shift where everyone reduces allowed max power. The govt is plato’s shadow of the peoples will. It’s currently being coopted by capital more and more. The corruption you speak of, is capitals power over us.
It seems to me we have fundamentally different ideas of what capitalism is. To me, capital is savings - immediate consumption forgone to create something which provides more in the future. I haven’t yet encountered an argument that isn’t reducible to a complaint against the way market mechanisms interact when the government is involved.
I agree about reducing the maximum wieldable power to the greatest extent possible. I think we just disagree about what this actually looks like. The problem is that any institution which would deign to be the authority on this matter is the very one where power coalesces. A system wherein no one single entity has the ultimate authority is the only one that won’t get worse on this over time. The participants should be governed by the incentives inherent in the system, not the dictates of one of the participants.
Anarcho-pacifism is a very respectable political position, btw. I think studying economics from the Austrian school would at least give you a better idea of where ancaps are actually coming from.
I’ll try to read it tomorrow. I’m an anarcho-pacifist btw lol. It’s too hard to just talk outright so I explain the reformist framing. Anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
Ha, sorry, I really should have replied to the other person directly because it was much more aimed at them, but I just went along the thread.
Also hard agree re capitalism and anarchism, screw ancaps.
This is true for democratic nations, but they’ve been feeling the hurt lately as representatives are being bought out by (you guessed it) billionaires. So even when it’s the governments failing, it’s usually some rich asshole pulling the strings behind them. Who would’ve thought a corrupt politician would need a sugar daddy.
Replace “billionaires” with “the government” and you got yourself something truer
But I like my hospitals and roads. I do wish they would stop spending on bombs and handouts to companies though.
Agreed about stopping that spending. You like the hospitals? And the roads? One of them is full of potholes and patrolled by the State constantly for their ticketing revenue generation scheme and the other will bankrupt you for existing. Doesn’t much matter if it’s America or elsewhere, the only difference is whether they took your money already or not.
That’s kinda my point though, if we had less tax money spent on companies and bombs then they could fix more potholes and wouldn’t have the same excuse of needing money to ticket people. A non corrupt govt could spend that money with so much more efficiency than we could. I think war money in the USA is so high that they could probably give you tax cuts at the same time if they just chilled on bombs.
There’s no such thing as a non-corrupt government. Taxation perverts the incentives because the source of their revenue is decoupled from the voluntary contributions of people who want the service they provide. That extra money will not be going to you. These people are not your friend. Efficiency isn’t even possible - half of the information in the economic calculation is not present because they don’t obtain revenue voluntarily.
Yep, I agree.
The less corrupt, the more specialists will control their own fields of specialty which allows more efficiency and sanity to the system, going beyond the standard incentives and the likes. I do agree that large scale governments are inherently bad, but I don’t think people are ready for anything better than a lower corruption more democratic subdivided government. Sounds like you want business to be more powerful than government? The reason our governments are so corrupt is because businesses buy the politicians because of previous measures being degraded by the same influences before. As corruption in the govt increases, corporate control is maximised.
I wasn’t expecting a serious convo in this post haha
I agree the more decentralized the better. And the government is just a business with the worst incentives - evidenced by other, more efficient businesses following their own incentives to protect their interests by lobbying the government to use the impetus of legal violence. The existence of the government provides the avenue for corruption. There isn’t a great workaround, the Constitution was the best attempt and a single clause enabled the federal government to argue for basically everything it does.
Best just to nix the idea of an institution that can legally demand resources regardless of how well they perform their job.
And yeah, sorry about the seriousness- I’m no fan of billionaires but they can theoretically exist just by providing things people want. The government, with taxes and wars, figuratively and literally suck the blood out of people.
When we started talking, I didn’t notice your username. If I did, I would have taken a different non reformist approach, so this is a bit messy because of me.
I think power corrupts, and I mean almost any level of power will make a person go insane(in a sane looking way).
Capitalist institutions will prefer to keep govt style arrangements with no power to the pretend democracy so they can protect themselves from themselves in a basic contract style way. What we see lately is the libertarian/ancap/conservative group gaining power. As they gain power, the govt becomes the capitalists puppet and rejects democracy entirely.
The correct way to handle this in my eyes is for a cultural shift where everyone reduces allowed max power. The govt is plato’s shadow of the peoples will. It’s currently being coopted by capital more and more. The corruption you speak of, is capitals power over us.
It seems to me we have fundamentally different ideas of what capitalism is. To me, capital is savings - immediate consumption forgone to create something which provides more in the future. I haven’t yet encountered an argument that isn’t reducible to a complaint against the way market mechanisms interact when the government is involved.
I agree about reducing the maximum wieldable power to the greatest extent possible. I think we just disagree about what this actually looks like. The problem is that any institution which would deign to be the authority on this matter is the very one where power coalesces. A system wherein no one single entity has the ultimate authority is the only one that won’t get worse on this over time. The participants should be governed by the incentives inherent in the system, not the dictates of one of the participants.
Anarcho-pacifism is a very respectable political position, btw. I think studying economics from the Austrian school would at least give you a better idea of where ancaps are actually coming from.
Perhaps you both just need an introduction to
Horizontal governance
I’ll try to read it tomorrow. I’m an anarcho-pacifist btw lol. It’s too hard to just talk outright so I explain the reformist framing. Anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
Ha, sorry, I really should have replied to the other person directly because it was much more aimed at them, but I just went along the thread.
Also hard agree re capitalism and anarchism, screw ancaps.
The US is not the only government in the world, silly. Some of them actually work
ancap brainrot 💀
Yes, I hate the government too. For allowing billionaires to exist and not holding them to account.
You can vote for who runs the government and even campaign to run yourself. That doesn’t happen with corporations.
It happens with corporations every day, every time you make a purchase. With the government you receive two bad options once every four years.
Governments have mechanism for changing them even if it’s difficult and seems impossible. But not billionaires. They are a blight on society.
This is true for democratic nations, but they’ve been feeling the hurt lately as representatives are being bought out by (you guessed it) billionaires. So even when it’s the governments failing, it’s usually some rich asshole pulling the strings behind them. Who would’ve thought a corrupt politician would need a sugar daddy.
I’ve never seen a happy ancap.