>>Government is less powerful nowadays than it has ever been since WW2.
I absolutely disagree with this. Under what metric and what government are you referring to.
US Federal Government has continually and unabatedly has increased and centralized its power since at least the Great Depression, Taking power from local and State governments transferring it to the Federal Government.
Under no metric can one say government in the US is less powerful today.
>The fight should be against the source of power, not against their powerless representatives.
The Source of government power is it monopoly on the initiation of violence, last I check it was only government with the legal power to steal, plunder, arrest, jail, and even kill people that disobey.
Government is more weak now because people have become very distrustful of it (reasonable given Vietnam and the events since). Because of that, the government has a lot less teeth nowadays to implement policies.
I know people talk about things like abortion and vaccine mandates and these issues are extremely important, but IMO they are extremely small scale topics that are more related to current cultural norms than long term policies.
We’re not dealing with the cultural issues of the 1960s these days. What we deal with are the 100 year old bridges, infrastructure projects, processes and programs that previous generations built. To me, these issues are much more important than anything else because they require investment now and yet their returns don’t realize until much later.
Yet our corporate tax rate is the lowest in a very long time and corporate tax evasion is huge, yet the government hasn’t had the support they need to do much about it. At the same time, people are (understandably) hugely distrustful of politicians, but all that does long term is hamper the policy making that we need now to set the stage for our grandchildren.
I think people vehemently taking pride and fighting over a lot of the current issues now is so short sighted.
I see the fundamental issue here. You are looking at from a perspective of what the government should be doing for you, where I do not believe the government should do anything for me.
I look at from what the government is or can do to me, what freedoms they take from me, you mention vaccine mandates and call it a "small issue". However from my perspective it is a HUGE issue, mandates to me are a complete intrusion into my body autonomy, if I loose that I cease being a free individual.
I look at things like the War on Drugs, War on Gun Rights, War on Terror, and 1000's laws that attempt end runs around the constitution and individual rights as an extreme expansion of government power
Where you look at crumbling bridges, a service I do not believe should be in the purview of the federal government at all in the first place, as seen a weakened government.
Roads at best should be a Local and State government issue not Federal Government. The fact that the federal government as taken over that function is an example of Expansion of government power.
> Roads at best should be a Local and State government issue not Federal Government. The fact that the federal government as taken over that function is an example of Expansion of government power.
But that still means the issue is insufficient government strength, though right? Simply at the local and state level rather than the federal level. Perhaps you can reframe it then as a power misallocation, but it still means some government is not powerful enough to get things done.
Nationwide roads are not bad. There are some states that are worse than others for the roads. Most of the big stories however have been about Interstate system bridges which are funded by mostly an 18.4c per gallon tax on gas and a commercial tax on diesel for trucks.
The federal government massively under funds the federal highway system.
That said, Road maintenance is not a government power issue. Road Construction might be if they need to seize land.
The calling out of roads is a red herring, Road account for a infinitesimal part of the budget, even the so called "build back better" plan has very very very little money in it for roads and bridges (about 3% of the spending)
To focus on that as an example of government being weak is ridiculous and completely miss understands the role and scope of government in the lives of everyday people.
If the government privatized all the roads would people that support this argument then claim we are in an stateless society because the government no longer builds the roads...
We can agree that the government is terrible at maintaining roads, however I do not view that as an example of government weakening, it is an example of government incompetence. Incompetence is universal and all encompassing for all government programs
Leaving aside the discussion on infrastructure, you say that vaccine mandates are a "HUGE issue" and use that as evidence for expansion of government power. How about conscription? I would argue forcing people to join an armed conflict is a much bigger transgression on your freedom than a vaccine mandate, would you not? And conscription has not been used by the government since Vietnam.
> Roads at best should be a Local and State government issue not Federal Government. The fact that the federal government as taken over that function is an example of Expansion of government power.
Why? Local government can just as much restrict your individual freedoms (and arguably do) as federal government. I for example very much prefer a federal government building bridges than a local government that tells me what color my house can be or when I can or can't put out christmas decoration.
I think both you and the OP are correct in some way. I would argue, the government has expanded their power (the primary example being surveillance capabilities), on the other hand I also agree with the previous poster, government seems to have much less power to act against large corporations.
I think both you and and the OP are correct on. I think we have seen governments expand
>>How about conscription? I would argue forcing people to join an armed conflict is a much bigger transgression on your freedom than a vaccine mandate, would you not?
First and foremost just because government has not used its power of conscription does not mean it has relinquished said power, in fact it has also expanded that power recently where by Women will not be required to sign up for the daft, aka selective service. Failure to do so has many penalties attached to it.
So this also fails the test on if government is weaker today then since WWII.
Further still even if the selective service was abolished I am not sure that eliminates the idea of conscription given that most of the military is made up of men and women who "choose" that path in life based on economic conditions impart created by governments monetary manipulation beginning in the 1970's [1]
>>Local government can just as much restrict your individual freedoms (and arguably do) as federal government.
While this is true, it is much much much easier to escape oppressive or non-functional local governments than it is to escape federal governments. This is why unpopular laws are often attempted at the federal level because if done at a local or state level people and businesses will just move to a new state or city to escape them, we see this all the time.
So I completely acknowledge that a local government could become just as if not more authoritarian as the federal government but that would still be preferred over a totalitarian nation state. It is far easier to move from California to Texas than it is to move from the US to Europe, or Europe to the US.
I am pro-vaccination, but agree that vaccine mandates, anti-abortion laws, and other mandates that interfere with bodily autonomy are a violation of fundamental human rights.
On the other hand, most of the ensuing consequences are not a violation of rights, but rather a natural result of any choice that puts others at risk.
Those who are anti-vax for any preventable, deadly disease choose their individual freedom over their community's safety. Such is their right. In turn, it is the right of the community to protect itself against the risk these people introduce.
Anyone may drive their car without a seatbelt on your property, but if they wish to use public roads, they must sacrifice a little bit of individual freedom and wear one.
I can see some logic behind wanting roads to be Local and State responsibilities. It would increase the freedom of individual taxpayers. This might result in a net increase in freedom, despite all the inevitable tolls, unstandardized roadways, and stymied arguments between states over who must pay to restore that crumbling interstate bridge. The economic burden would lift off of the taxpayer's shoulders and fall back on the business or person who uses the roads the most, especially those businesses which have profited from being able to cross state lines efficiently –not something most local folks care to encourage through a federal subsidy anyways. Perhaps the framers of the constitution went too far when they suggested that Congress should be able to tax to, "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...to regulate commerce among the several states...to establish post offices and post roads." Most people don't need packages to go straight to their house anyways!
The same goes for public schools, better referred to as the only school a poor person can afford to attend. Communities should be allowed
But one thing is for sure. If public schools exist as the only option for most of their students, two things are true. First, they cannot stop attendees from being smokers or anti-vaxxers out in the world. Second, they absolutely must restrict these individuals from introducing deadly risks into the classroom.
This is best solved at the State and Local level, but in some cases.
These should never be penalties and restrictions against refusal, but instead protections for the community against the resultant risk. It is for the State and Local government to decide how much they accommodate risk-promoting individuals. For example, many schools are providing separate instruction for anti-vaxxers. Good for those emburdened taxpayers, deciding to help the selfish among them!
>>Those who are anti-vax for any preventable, deadly disease choose their individual freedom over their community's safety. Such is their right. In turn, it is the right of the community to protect itself against the risk these people introduce.
False. Vaccination protects you the individual from being infected, thus eliminating the risk the unvaccinated poses to you. Which in turn eliminates your ethical right to impose conditions upon them..
>>Anyone may drive their car without a seatbelt on your property, but if they wish to use public roads, they must sacrifice a little bit of individual freedom and wear one.
This is like wise a TERRIBLE argument, if you support individual liberty (which clearly you do not) then you would understand that my not wearing a seat belt poses no risk to your safety, as such you have no ethical right to impose such a mandate on me.
My insurance company may as part of a private contract I enter into them voluntary but not the government on behalf of "society"
Government is neither my parent nor my master.
In reality the Seat belt mandated was an example of regulatory capture by the insurance companies, it to protect insurance profits not public safety
>>The same goes for public schools, better referred to as the only school a poor person can afford to attend. Communities should be allowed
I take it then you are in favor of School Choice, where each parent is given a voucher for X dollars they can redeem at the school of their choice.
> False. Vaccination protects you the individual from being infected, thus eliminating the risk the unvaccinated poses to you.
False. Vaccinations reduce your ability to catch specific diseases and reduce the probability of enduring symptoms at full strength.
The risks the unvaccinated impose are not eliminated, and the unvaccinated in larger numbers will continue to impose a threat against the people that can't get vaccinated for medical reasons or are immunocompromised.
And you believe both of those are justifications for violating an persons Body Automomy, their human rights not to have medical treatments done to them with out their consent?
That seems to be a very Authoritarian respone, and one that has lead to very dark places through out human history, that is not a power I willing to give to any government
The corner stone of modern medicine is "informed Consent" the keyword there is Consent. You just want to toss away Consent because of (IMO) irrational fear.
The vaccination provides me with adequate protection, I do not need to impose a medical treatment on someone against their will, it is sad that others feel they need to.
> Under what metric and what government are you referring to.
In the metric that matters: who bought the US government. Current US government is bought by corporate interests and does absolutely nothing that goes against big corporate power. This indicates that government is subjugated to the capitalist oligarchy, and the crimes it commits are allowed or supported by the same capitalist oligarchy.
When you concentrate so much power in one place, everyone who craves power will go after it, so its subjugation was inevitable. That's one of the reasons why centralization is bad - and this is completely orthogonal to capitalism and other economic modes. Strong centralized government without capitalism gets you authoritarian (if you're lucky) or totalitarian (if you're not) socialism.
So we have come full circle, and you are basically restating my original thesis.
Government created corporations, corporations are not a free market invention. With out government there can be no corporations as they are simply a fictitious legal entity created by government for the purposes of liability protections, and investment
You seem to have this impression that Corporations hate regulation, this is false, I mean hell Amazon, Facebook, even Google has BEGGED for regulations at various points because the know it kills competition in the market.
But yes, keep blaming capitalism for problems created by government, I am sure more government will solve those problems....
Well, if a "free" market cannot create corporations, then what can it really do? You're talking about a fantasy created by your head, not about a free market.
The argument is that limited liability is something which can only come from a government and not a free market—not companies in general. To a small degree this is probably true, but you can get very close through ordinary contracts. For the most part limited liability only shields you when it comes to your creditors and ordinary business dealings; if you harm someone deliberately, or through negligence, your status as an agent of a limited liability corporation will not prevent you from being found personally liable. And it's not difficult to specify in a contract that any compensation for breach of contract is limited to the assets of the company and not its owners, so that much does not require any government intervention. That leaves a "grey area" limited to accidental harm not involving negligence where the corporation lacks sufficient resources to cover the liability—which is a tiny minority of all cases where corporations probably receive more protection than the corresponding organizations would in a free market, and really not something worth obsessing over.
This may be correct only in the sense that, without a government, there would be zero liability (instead of limited liability) for big companies. After all who could go against, for example, Microsoft if it decided to screw their customers and suppliers?
Even the largest companies are dependent on maintaining their reputations as organizations which uphold their ends of any agreements. A company which no one will contract with might as well not exist. They're not going to just turn outlaw and repudiate their liability as determined by a fair arbitration process; that would be tantamount to corporate suicide.
This is a very simplistic explanation of limited liability, and absolute does not cover all situation for which government shields companies from liability.
For example EPA, and other government agencies have all kinds of regulations that cap, or other shield companies from liabilities preventing ordinary citizens from seeking compensation from the corporations that harmed them.
There is also the endless amount of regulations the protect businesses from consumer backlash which is also a form of liability shield. This is why businesses wanted the government to step in an mandated masks, vaccinations, etc so they would not have make the hard choices for their own business they can stand back and say "it is not us, it is the government making us"
Of course these are just 2 examples there are many many many others
I agree that the government does various other things to shield specific companies from liability in specific circumstances, but these are not inherent in the concept of a limited liability corporation under discussion.
Given that I started this discussion I think I have a understanding of what is under discussion.
The main thesis that was/is being debated is one on corruption and the feedback loop between government and corporations. For which I contend that governments created corporations to shield these entities from liability.
you described one type of liability which excluded other types, I maintain that my original comment has a greater scope
> For which I contend that governments created corporations to shield these entities from liability.
The concept of limited liability for corporations, equitable trusts, and the like predates its official recognition in law. For a long time it was simply taken for granted that creditors could not pursue a business organization's debts against its individual members. The term "corporation" may have been a government invention—originally associated with de jure monopolies—but government did not create the idea of an organization with limited liability. It did extend the concept slightly to include protection against liability for certain kinds of torts, which I agree is not something that could exist in a free market. And of course the idea of a corporation in the original sense, as an organization granted a monopoly on a certain kind of trade, is incompatible with the free market. But the idea that large companies with limited liability (only for contracts, not torts) could not exist in a free market is nonsense. And when it comes to torts, liability ought to rest with the individual(s) whose action or negligence caused the harm, not the shareholders, which makes the lack of limited liability for torts for the owners of a large joint stock company less of a concern; they're not the ones responsible for the harm to begin with.
I absolutely disagree with this. Under what metric and what government are you referring to.
US Federal Government has continually and unabatedly has increased and centralized its power since at least the Great Depression, Taking power from local and State governments transferring it to the Federal Government.
Under no metric can one say government in the US is less powerful today.
>The fight should be against the source of power, not against their powerless representatives.
The Source of government power is it monopoly on the initiation of violence, last I check it was only government with the legal power to steal, plunder, arrest, jail, and even kill people that disobey.
I think it is fine the fight against both