Found on r/superstonk, people are starting to see
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (50)
sorted by:
This isn't an argument. It's just fence sitting, so that whomever wrote it can appear to be on whichever side he wants.
In a perfect world, you wouldn't need government. But you'd still have trade.
Government is the problem that creates the corrupt billionaires. You're either for freedom or you're not. Stop fence-sitting it's gross.
yes in a perfect world. but this world is not perfect. until Kingdom comes.
Government is the problem that creates the corrupt billionaires.
I would say "too much government" creates the problem. In that I am minarchist and pro-free market, not 'pro-business' as there is a difference between the 2.
Government is necessary because men can be greedy corrupt asshats. The more asshattery there is, the more government the people themselves will demand in order to maintain order. Tyranny is 99.9% of the time preceded by degradation of morals and culture.
So I would argue it is morals that must be upheld and enforced by the culture and force of law. Deviants SHOULD be ostracized, bullied, and shamed.
If people are good, you wouldn't need a government. If people are evil, you can't have a government because all the evil people are attracted to power and will take over your government.
Hence the self-destructive loop when moral degradation begins; the people turn to that which will bring greater moral degradation until absolute tyranny. The tyranny typically finds a way to obliterate itself in time, but the damage is done; those who survive pick up the pieces and the cycles starts over again. The longer moral degradation can be avoided, and the more people directly fight the degradation instead of playing into the cycle, the longer a society/government/etc. will be sustained.
I wonder if there's a third option here...
AFAIK, Facebook still receives government grants leftover from the Dot Com Era, in spite of being a multinational firm with their main offices in Ireland and being worth billions of dollars
What if we treated any firm with, say, 50% or more of their assets outside of the United States as a foreign actor, forbidding them for instance from lobbying, donating to political campaigns, etc. save through the embassy where most of those assets are held, or else assign an ambassador of their own if most assets are still held in the U.S.
I'm not sure how you would set up the finer details, but it seems to me this would allow them to act more or less independently, while keeping them at arm's distance from the U.S. Government...
This right here. Corrupt billionaires are corrupt billionaires because either (a) they've colluded with the government through regulatory capture, insider information, or something else to get billions or (b) they're breaking laws that need to be enforced that I would go into PMITA prison if I broke myself. The problem is the corruption. If that ultimately leaves an honest market that allows billionaires to exist, I have no problem with that.
You need the government to keep the bad guys under control. The problem with democracy is the bad guys can control..