Comment by djschnei | Hacker News Reader

Comment by djschnei | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Government IS the check on corporate power! You are the one who is misunderstood. As a libertarian, I believe governments are vital to a civil society (never said I was an anarchist). I believe governments SHOULD have (granted to it by the people who it represents) pretty ultimate powers in dealing with bad-actors. However, those powers should only be used in very specific situations; Does person A's actions infringe on person B's rights. Spewing toxic smoke into the air and making me sick is an act of physical violence towards me; the government should step in. The government picking winners and losers in a marketplace based on special interests and who can lobby more effectively doesn't protect my rights - it infringes on them.

All people, whether they work for a massive corporation or within the government, make most of their decisions based on personal self interest. Give corporate entities unfettered power, they will stomp on people. Give government unfettered power, they will stomp on people. It's all about channeling the individual's drive to improve their own life towards the best interest of the collective. A free-market and a government whose sole purpose it is to protect individual rights, is the best way to do it.

I don't believe in unlimited corporate power because people are fallible. I don't believe in unlimited government power because people are fallible.

What kind of check on corporate power can a government be when it is reduced to only national defense and maybe police? I don't run into many libertarians that argue that we should keep the corporate regulations.

I think you may not be in line with mainstream libertarians.

I am 100% in line with mainstream libertarians. I don't think we should keep "corporate" regulations. I think the government should wield its power to prevent one person from infringing on another person's rights, whether they work in government or a corporation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fun fact: the government and the largest corporations are made up of exactly the same thing - people looking out for their self interests. There is nothing more sinister or more benevolent about either of them (in composition).

That makes no sense.

The government should prevent bad things from happening, but they won't have any framework or enforcement mechanisms for doing so.

What do you think corporate (and other) regulations are for? How do you think they are enforced? You want the government to stop people from dumping poison in a river and killing people and animals hundreds of miles downstream, and do it without an EPA or environmental regulation, not even a definition of what "poison" is, much less written penalties for putting it in the environment uncontrolled. If you don't agree on something and write it down you'll be stuck arguing the details for years and years every time there is a dispute.

"You are poisoning the water and killing people!" "Nope, this stuff isn't that dangerous, it must be one of the hundreds of other factories dumping in this river." "We know your stuff is dangerous!" "I don't see that anywhere on here. I say it's safe. You want to spend the next 10 years in court arguing over this? Because I will, and all of your plantiffs will be dead before the case is over and I'll win by default."

You live in a fantasy world if you think our corporate and environmental regulations are limited to just the things that protect your rights.

"Simplifying the tax code would remove the government's ability to tax!" <-- analogous to your claim

I'm saying shrink, not eliminate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com