Mathbud1
VIP Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 784
- 74
- 75
Mathbud1,
I didn't intend to call out the people as succeeding, I meant to call out the institutions which consider quarterly profit. If you don't, you are outta the game. "So consider the short term or don't bother" is what it comes down to. I have nothing against the people in elite positions per se. Like Noam Chomsky says, the execs know they aren't leaving a bright future for their children but the institutions won't allow them to think another way. if they did, they would be outta there.
Regarding the question about more gov't=more corruption. This cannot be determined a priori. We must take a look at what expanding the gov't has done. Can it be done in matter of fact and helpful ways? Yes. Take civil rights. They were demanding the gov't do something and it has resulted in more progress than regress by passing certain laws. Did the war on poverty that lasted about 3 years work? It certainly helped a few in need. So I'd imagine a plan that recognizes the humanity and needs of each citizen can be implemented in positively. My hope of lifting almost all people out of poverty would mean they could make their own choices and likely resist the institutions that harmed them Moreover, if those in poverty became peers with people like FAQ, then he would be less likely to assert falsehoods that poor people make bad products and thus deserve less. The fact is, people are molded by birth, geographical happenstance and institutions, all of which are not their choosing. And if the institutions churn out extreme inequality, yeah, people are less likely to see others as peers and think they somehow fail to work as hard. It allows discrimination to become insidious rather than a helpful distinction. That doesn't mean there won't be fraud and some negative consequences in expanding the gov't, but instead of dismantling the state, I think we should strengthen it to combat what institutions (including gov't) have helped create: massive inequality that is just shameful given human capability to create an abundant society for everyone (during the 2008 food crisis there was enough food for every person on earth to eat 2,700 kilo calories-see former UN Ex. Director Josette Sheeran)
Before we can run a society without gov't or little gov't, it would behoove us to ensure means for survival to everyone. Without gov't, what then of law? Wouldn't anyone with enough might and/or resources form a cruel dictatorship over us? Like Goldman Sachs who own vast amounts of resources and wealth. That would be regress. In fact, the idea of private property is founded upon gov't. Without gov't, private property cannot be insured. It would likely be mayhem.
There's a big difference between civil rights laws and putting the government in charge of distributing resources or controlling how resources are distributed. There is little to no opportunity for corruption based on civil rights laws. There is a HUGE opportunity for corruption when government is responsible for distributing resources. That corruption would likely only lead to greater inequality than today.
I'm not saying we should have no government and therefore mayhem. I'm saying that limiting the opportunity for government corruption is the only sane thing to do.
I know you think your emotional arguments are falling on deaf ears. They aren't. I just don't see a way for government to be in charge of the things you want them to be in charge of without causing even more harm than we face today.