Big Government or Big Business?

[Revoltingest]

I think the Libertarian view is short-sighted and naively assumes that the government is the only threat to our freedom.

I never said I make that assumption.
Where do you get this stuff?
Anyway, if you must point out that you find me naive, then I'll reciprocate with my
diagnosis that that your blind faith in a parental big government is ovine & childish.
Hah! That was fun.

I'm in favour of freedom myself, but I recognize that part of ensuring freedom involves limiting the ability of individuals to infringe on the freedom of others.

Duh! That's where government comes in......& my preference is small government, limited
to protecting the country, protecting rights, enforcing the Constitution & adjudicating disputes.
No nanny state, no foreign adventurism, no micro-management of our lives. But you shouldn't
worry or get your panties in a bunch, since I'll never have any real influence or get my way.
I & my cohorts will remain an insignificant fringe element.

 

[Alceste]

Well, in that case, I'll play along.

There is more opportunity for the abuse of power through the instrument of government. Big government seeks to control people whereas big business primarily seeks to maximize profits. Big bizz only seeks to control people in order to max out profit so, in some ways, they're more predictable than big govt, with its many different competing agendas and ways of manipulating people. At least most corporations are just after my money and not my body or soul.

Sounds like you've never worked for a major corporation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What is more easily forgivable to you? What is more tyrannical? Is either favorable for the world?

Are there other "Big" organizations that you find favorable, forgivable or frightening? Like Big Religion? Big Lobbyists? Big Agriculture?

I'm going to chicken out here.

They are necessary and can be terrible. Not only that, but the reason one might be awful is because of another. I recall Walmart having nothing much in the way of lobbyists until "big government" started involving themselves in Walmart's affairs, and then Walmart hired lots and lots of lobbyists, turning the situation into "big government" vs. "big business". Religious groups, like any ideological groups, fund lobbyists, companies, think tanks, politicians, etc. Sometimes this is actually a good thing (like when archaeological digs in formerly biblical regions are funded). Often not.

There's an interesting book titled Here Comes Everybody which is partly about web 2.0 and the power of big groups with no one in charge, but also partly on why this doesn't work in many situations (like government or large companies).

In certain cituations, like computer chips, companies which make superior products (Intel) rise to the top while others fail because they don't produce what they should. In other cases, companies rise to the top because of clever initial marketing and then lots of cheating (Microsoft). And in still other cases, big companies fail and big governments bail them out to prevent job loss. However, while it is sad that people will lose their jobs because executives made bad decisions, the fact that the entire economy will suffer because the government is sponsoring "big businesses" which can't hack it on their own is even worse.

This is why I like math and physics. I can create a perfect model of an ideal economy mathematically, or predict perfectly what market trends will be based on my idealized model. The real world just won't do what my perfect models tell them to.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I think the Libertarian view is short-sighted and naively assumes that the government is the only threat to our freedom.

I'm in favour of freedom myself, but I recognize that part of ensuring freedom involves limiting the ability of individuals to infringe on the freedom of others.

I have trouble understanding the difference between libertarianism and anarchism, at least the version advocated today. If they really wanted government out of *everything*, they should at least be honest and admit that they share Grover Norquist's (sp?) vision of shrinking government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub (or fit inside a woman's vagina).

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Sounds awful. But the Iraq & Afghan wars are worse.
So I'll continue to face the reality of gov being the more dangerous.

That's like saying, "Because we have serial killers out there, isolated homicides are not a big deal." Is that the latest libertarian/conservative talking point?

They don't have "virtually unlimited power".

LOL are you kidding me? They can operate with virtual impunity. You think those people in Arkansas are going to get fair compensation for their losses? You are seriously naive if you think bad behavior on the part of big corporations--especially in certain industries such as energy, financial, and agricultural--is the exception and not the rule.

If you want one too, then try being clever & mirthful.

I am not worthy of that award.

To you it matters which of The Big Two dominates.
To me it matters only that The Big Two dominate.

You lie. Again. I haven't even said what I want. Hint: Having the Democratic party take control ain't it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
But please don't elaborate.

Didn't you see the prefix, "Perhaps"?
You're too quick to take offense & become petulant.
This isn't interesting.

It's really hard to tell if you're trolling or trying to debate with this. No offense, I just can't tell.

 

[Straw Dog]

Sounds like you've never worked for a major corporation.

I was just making an argument for no particular reason. I don't even agree with my own premises. I better watch myself in the future. I could've already started other arguments without even knowing or caring about them.

 

[Sunstone]

I think history shows unregulated corporations will take advantage of the commons in such ways as to destroy them.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's like saying, "Because we have serial killers out there, isolated homicides are not a big deal." Is that the latest libertarian/conservative talking point?

It's not like that at all.
Your histrionic straw men are a distraction.

LOL are you kidding me? They can operate with virtual impunity. You think those people in Arkansas are going to get fair compensation for their losses? You are seriously naive if you think bad behavior on the part of big corporations--especially in certain industries such as energy, financial, and agricultural--is the exception and not the rule.

How did BP fare after the oil spill? What did it cost them?
While regulation can be improved, they hardly operate with "impunity".
Ah, but big government....where are the sanctions against Bush & Obama for the wars?

You lie. Again. I haven't even said what I want. Hint: Having the Democratic party take control ain't it.

I'll make you a deal.
If you don't say I'm lying, then I won't bring up your petulance & hebetude.
Sound fair?
(Oh, this will get my knuckles rapped for sure!)

It's really hard to tell if you're trolling or trying to debate with this. No offense, I just can't tell.

No, you do clearly intend to be offensive, since you repeatedly (& erroneously) accuse me of lying.
I believe that you & I are done until you learn to be civil.

 

[WyattDerp]

I think history shows unregulated corporations will take advantage of the commons in such ways as to destroy them.

Consider all those open protocols of old... usenet, IRC, email, finger, and compare to Facebook and Twitter, and just about every mobile device having heir own flavour of walled garden, and *less* (at least it seems that way, in relative terms) people running their own blogs or whatever on their own sites, not to mention doing their own stats. Despite all the progress when it comes to shiny HTML and CSS, and efficiency in general, I sometimes can't help but think of this Orwell quote: "Certain backward areas have advanced, and various devices always in some way connected with warfare and police espionage have developed, but experiment and invention have largely stopped." If it can't be used to track people and show them ads, no thanks. If it is for free, can be copied and improved upon freely, and empowers people instead of controlling them, no thanks. If it means creativity and control, instead of consumption and decay, no thanks.

 

[Kerr]

What is more easily forgivable to you? What is more tyrannical? Is either favorable for the world?

Are there other "Big" organizations that you find favorable, forgivable or frightening? Like Big Religion? Big Lobbyists? Big Agriculture?

Depends on what you mean by "big". When it comes to governments, I dont mind a one that invest a lot in public welfare. But I am completely opposed to it telling the people what to think or believe. Or start invading our privacy for no reason. Or being above critique. Or trying to dictate how people lives.

When it comes to companies or organizations I guess the same rules apply, even though I might be more skeptical in some instances. I remember when I was going to register a free programming tool and they wanted me to give up a lot of sensitive information. Information that may have made sense if I was a company or something, but not for a hobby programmer. So I uninstalled it instead.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

It's not like that at all.
Your histrionic straw men are a distraction.

Perhaps the libertarian/conservative bubble is too narrow to allow those inside it to see the truth of the matter?

How did BP fare after the oil spill? What did it cost them?
While regulation can be improved, they hardly operate with "impunity".
Ah, but big government....where are the sanctions against Bush & Obama for the wars?

Good question!

I'll make you a deal.
If you don't say I'm lying, then I won't bring up your petulance & hebetude.
Sound fair?
(Oh, this will get my knuckles rapped for sure!)

No, you do clearly intend to be offensive, since you repeatedly (& erroneously) accuse me of lying.
I believe that you & I are done until you learn to be civil.

Ooooooh! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

I'm sorry if your offended that I'm calling you on your lies. The catch is that I know what it's like to be in the bubble, and you're simply talking as one who is. Really, few comments that come from the bubble phase me any more; I *expect* the remarks to be full of half-truths and distortions.

Revolting I don't come to dick around. I come to have my beliefs challenged and to return the favor. But the sad truth is that this is an incredibly difficult goal when one camp has all but refused to exchange ideas--not just to dish them out, but to listen to some as well. Many, many, many, many posts around here serve as evidence towards that conclusion.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Depends on what you mean by "big". When it comes to governments, I dont mind a one that invest a lot in public welfare. But I am completely opposed to it telling the people what to think or believe. Or start invading our privacy for no reason. Or being above critique. Or trying to dictate how people lives.

When it comes to companies or organizations I guess the same rules apply, even though I might be more skeptical in some instances. I remember when I was going to register a free programming tool and they wanted me to give up a lot of sensitive information. Information that may have made sense if I was a company or something, but not for a hobby programmer. So I uninstalled it instead.

I'm in favor of a system where the people regulate the government, which in turn regulates the corporations.

Look at it this way. When I get out on the highway, there are certain rules I am required to follow. I must stay in my lane except to turn, avoid obstacles, etc., and I cannot hit another car in the process of leaving my lane. When the light turns red, I must stop. Etc. And if I choose not to follow these rules, then I risk a consequence.

I don't know of a soul here who believes that people should literally be able to do anything they like on the highway. Yes there are some that egotistically believe that they are above these rules, but almost nobody believes that everyone is except. Can you imagine the chaos that would result? See, there may be differences over individual details: Should the speed limit be raised? Well, it depends on which road. Should yellow lights be longer? Again, it depends. The fact that people will disagree over these details in no way, shape or form implies that people want to throw the rules out entirely.

So why do they talk like they want to throw the rules out for corporations? Why are such basic rules such as "Don't dump arsenic in the river" and "You must put exactly the food that you say on the label" some form of "big government"? How have so many people let themselves be deluded by this? So what if it means the price of food goes up a little. Fine, if that means mercury-free fish, hell yeah I'll pay 20-30% more. It seems to me that the origins of these messages are from those who stand to literally profit the most from them. After all, if profit is all that matters, what's a little potassium dichromate in the groundwater if it means profits will go up by 10%?

Asking for better enforcement of better regulations on corporations is not socialism. It's common sense.

 

[freethinker44]

Here is a pretty good website I found dealing with government. I will argue against any form of government, to include anarchy, so I was a little surprised to find that I agree with just about everything I read on here. I'm not ready to say government is good, however, it is necessary and preferable over privatized institutions.

Government is Good - An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution

 

[greenfish77]

Why is it always an issue of size and not quality? I would be fine with small government that works correctly and I would be fine with a large government that works correctly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revolting I don't come to dick around.

You don't discuss differences; you just rant & rave, without reason or civility.
I've no interest in your game.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is it always an issue of size and not quality? I would be fine with small government that works correctly and I would be fine with a large government that works correctly.

It isn't about quality of government, since everyone wants that.
Size is a result of the kind of government we have.
A minarchy is just enuf gov to defend the country & protect civil rights.
Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The welfare state which loves foreign adventurism will be a large & centralized affair.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

You don't discuss differences; you just rant & rave, without reason or civility.
I've no interest in your game.

OK. I win!

 

[Yerda]

It's like a choice between a poke in the eye or a kick in the balls. Both so appealing.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's like a choice between a poke in the eye or a kick in the balls. Both so appealing.

A poke in the eye.....government....it reminded me of this....
[youtube]ScGPRsHSkaE[/youtube]
Three Stooges eye poke - YouTube

 

[Revoltingest]

A relevant story:

I've dealt with many banks & credit unions for my borrowing needs over decades. Most were pretty big, eg, TCF, Std Fed, Countrywide. Most were American, but one was British (Royal Bank of Scotland, aka RBS- owned by the Brit government). I've had many loans over the years, many in the 7 figure range. What did this teach me? Aside from having to face my own bad decisions which require borrowing money, I hate banks. I really hate banks. To be fair, it's not all their fault, since sometimes the grief is due to pesky & feckless but expensive gov regulation. (I hate government too, btw.) But still, I hate dealing with banks. And the bigger they become, the worse their service gets. I'll spare you most of the boring details, but one of the most irksome is paying about $70K in legal bills in one year just fighting with one...RBS, the government owned one. I hate Brits now too. (I'll make exceptions for friendly posters though.)

But there is a bright side to this unholy relationship I have with the dark lords of lending. Today I med with a small local lender regarding 3 loan applications which have been in the works for a few months. The staff have been unfailingly helpful, competent, professional & friendly. (I'm truly surprised by this.) Their terms are the best I've found (& I've shopped around a lot). This illustrates the big business vs big government issue to me. If I hate some banks, I may give them the figurative finger, & instead do business with one I like....& I suffer no inconvenience. If I don't like my government, there is no option short of moving to Canuckistan or elsewhere....as I almost did when the Fed thought it a good idea that I go kill some women & children (& men) in Viet Nam.