It always comes down to the same proposition: do you want more prosperity? Very well then, all you have to do is let more businessmen break more laws. Never mind the resulting discredit of civil authority, never mind the psychic despair caused by exposure to corruption, never even mind the fact that the prosperity never arrives because all the money is stolen -- which was the only purpose in the first place.
> do you want more prosperity? Very well then, all you have to do is let more businessmen break more laws
If your society forces this trade-off, it fucked up at a fundamental level and will devolve into instability amidst declining living standards and the erosion of the rule of law.
There is nothing inherent in prosperity that requires lawlessness. If anything, prosperity demands the rule of law and strong institutions; Somalia is no panacea. But innovation benefits from freedom. When that freedom is broad, prosperity occurs at scale. When it requires permission, whether by a monarch or by a bureaucrat, prosperity is more limited and making money despite the gatekeeper requires rulebreaking.
Business saw how well this strategy worked for police in the 1960s: if you want our help, you must make us unaccountable. Never mind the fact that then the help is no longer worth anything.
By Gresham's Law of ideas, the concept of freedom has become a euphemism for unaccountability. The only freedom that anyone today understands is freedom from the rule of law.
> Business saw how well this strategy worked for police in the 1960s: if you want our help, you must make us unaccountable
This only works with natural monopoly. Business wants a monopoly isn’t exactly groundbreaking.
> By Gresham's Law of ideas, the concept of freedom has become a euphemism for unaccountability
“Gresham's Law of ideas” doesn’t make sense; ideas don’t have nominal value. Even if they did, your usage doesn’t work unless we conflate bad with popular, at which point the entire argument boils down to that which is popular is bad because it’s popular, which is freshman dorm room tautology.
I dunno, I'd maybe wait for the European Commission and FTC to finish scrutinizing over America's cash cows like Google and Apple before jumping to conclusions about success. If it turns out that both companies are criminally irresponsible with their power, then maybe Europe is comparatively better at regulation than the United States.
Without a reasonable and accountable standard of good state-capitalist relations, I don't know how we can even reach a conclusion yet. Today you're evil for scrutinizing Google; after they lose their AdSense antitrust case, maybe you'll be a consummate hero for the same deed.
